-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 78
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
EmptyDrop and Object indexing #477
Comments
Its been a while since I've dug into the meaning of this on both sides but I think we were aiming for From https://github.com/Shopify/liquid
|
I think that's a fair goal for values leaving a filter chain, but it seems like the inconsistent behaviour between the two cases above is surprising. I'm trying to figure out if there's even a way to handle this case in the template, because as far as I can tell there's no way to check if some value is set without getting this error |
Yes, I had missed the inconsistency in my first read through. Thats something that needs looking into.
You can do |
Thanks, if you have any inclinations on where I can poke at this issue in the codebase I'd be happy to see if I can resolve the inconsistency |
Any thoughts or follow-up on this one? |
The question for any of this is what does Ruby's implementation do with those strict flags set. Any discussion or PR should be focused on that. |
Okay, I've done a repl test against the latest ruby gem and found that filters are not allowed to start with undefined variables when |
liquid-rust version: 0.26.0
rust version: 1.63.0
OS: linux
I've been referencing this page of the liquid docs, and my understanding of the
nil
andEmptyDrop
type is that both of the following should be possible:In using liquid-rust, however, I'm finding that the second case fails for me if
data.value
does not already exist. I get an error like:I was looking for an existing issue for this but didn't find anything, am I missing something?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: