Fix global definition of programming language#585
Merged
Conversation
niknetniko
approved these changes
Apr 12, 2025
Member
niknetniko
left a comment
niknetniko
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A much better approach than what was suggested in the original issue I think.
bmesuere
approved these changes
Apr 13, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pr disables validation of
tested-dsl-expressionif the programming language is specified in the root.If a programming language is specified in the root, statements and expressions are not parsed and thus don't need to match the validation.
This is a different solution than the one proposed in: #578
The main difference is that the proposed solution told the schema that in case a programming language is specified the format is not required. While in my solution, the schema still 'requires' the format, but the validation of this format becomes more flexible in case the root language is specified.
I chose this second option as this had a way smaller impact on the code, and the validation of the format happened in custom python code anyway.
closes #578