Correct parsing of Label attribute ECFLOW-1890 #184
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
marcosbento
force-pushed
the
feature/parsing_label_state
branch
from
c078473 to
8cd8eb9
Compare
marcosbento
force-pushed
the
feature/parsing_label_state
branch
from
8cd8eb9 to
53bac01
Compare
marcosbento
force-pushed
the
feature/parsing_label_state
branch
from
53bac01 to
a1d006d
Compare
marcosbento
force-pushed
the
feature/parsing_label_state
branch
from
a1d006d to
1071e67
Compare
marcosbento
force-pushed
the
feature/parsing_label_state
branch
5 times, most recently
from
17287ee to
5da7bd5
Compare
marcosbento
force-pushed
the
feature/parsing_label_state
branch
from
5da7bd5 to
0e42807
Compare
marcosbento
force-pushed
the
feature/parsing_label_state
branch
3 times, most recently
from
e637a60 to
98b5e43
Compare
marcosbento
force-pushed
the
feature/parsing_label_state
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7acab1e to
0b57baa
Compare
marcosbento
force-pushed
the
feature/parsing_label_state
branch
2 times, most recently
from
00515f6 to
7e5b760
Compare
The changes propose a better (but still not flawless) approach to parsing the Label attribute. Re ECFLOW-1890 Explanation of the Problem: A Label attribute is stores in the .def file in the following format: > label <name> "<value>" # "<new-value>" with the double quotes and hash symbol used as separators. This approach works fine while <value> or <new-value> do not contain any double quotes or hash symbols. When the values contain double quotes or hash symbols, the parsing becomes ambiguous. In the following example > label <name> "value X " # " and Y " # " value Z" Should the parser consider <value> = "value X " # " and Y " <new-value> = " value Z" or <value> = "value X " <new-value> " and Y " # " value Z" ? Both might be correct depending on the user's intents! This becomes even more convoluted when the value contains double quotes, as in this example: label <name> " "value X" " # " # " # " "value Y" "
marcosbento
force-pushed
the
feature/parsing_label_state
branch
from
7e5b760 to
f9d1922
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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.
The changes propose a better (but still not flawless) approach to parsing the Label attribute.
Re ECFLOW-1890
Explanation of the Problem:
A Label attribute is stores in the .def file in the following format:
with the double quotes and hash symbol used as separators. This approach works fine while or do not contain any double quotes or hash symbols.
When the values contain double quotes or hash symbols, the parsing becomes ambiguous. In the following example
Should the parser consider
= "value X " # " and Y "
= " value Z"
or
= "value X "
" and Y " # " value Z"
?
Both might be correct depending on the user's intents!
This becomes even more convoluted when the value contains double quotes, as in this example:
label " "value X" " # " # " # " "value Y" "
🌦️ >> Documentation << 🌦️
https://sites.ecmwf.int/docs/dev-section/ecflow/pull-requests/PR-184