Skip to content

Conversation

@dhower-qc
Copy link
Collaborator

WIP

Comment on lines 49 to 50
The "compatible with" operator will accept any version that is greater than or equal to the target and that has not been marked as a breaking version change in the database.
Note that RISC-V does not follow semantic versioning, so `2.0` may be compatible with `1.0` for a given extension as long as `2.0` (or any version between `1.0` and `2.0`) is not marked as a breaking version.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this "marking" documented somewhere?
If so, can you put a reference to that here?

Comment on lines 102 to 103
| `less_than_or_equal` | Parameter value is less than or equal to | `less_than`: 5
| `greater_than_or_equal` | Parameter value is greater than or equal to | `greater_than`: 5
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The examples here need to use the respective keys. (Looks like they were just copied from the previous examples.

Generic constraints provide an escape hatch when a condition is difficult to express when using <<ext_reqs,Extension Requirements>> or <<param_reqs,Parameter Requirements>>.
A generic constraint is an IDL function containing one or more link:../idl.adoc#implications[implications].
The constraint holds if all the implications are true.
The constraint function does not return a value.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems more logical to return a boolean, no?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could, but the implications are easier to identify and extract as specific sub-conditions that apply. This becomes important so that we can transform between IDL <-> yaml forms of conditionals (I'll explain more in today's meeting)

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 16, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 43.99%. Comparing base (3d9129d) to head (2f931cb).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #891      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   46.05%   43.99%   -2.07%     
==========================================
  Files          11        9       -2     
  Lines        4942    16283   +11341     
  Branches     1345     6051    +4706     
==========================================
+ Hits         2276     7163    +4887     
- Misses       2666     9120    +6454     
Flag Coverage Δ
idlc 43.99% <ø> (-2.07%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants