Fix false error with task ext blocks in strict syntax #6569
Conversation
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
Signed-off-by: Ben Sherman <[email protected]>
✅ Deploy Preview for nextflow-docs-staging canceled.
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Close #4903
This PR fixes an issue with process
extblocks specified in a config profileThe original issue was about
extblocks under different selectors being merged when using the old syntax parser. The strict parser doesn't have this problem, but had some other issues that this PR addresses.Since the old config parser is very complicated and fragile, and will be deprecated in 26.04, I have opted to fix the issues only in the strict parser.