-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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
Repeated structured type declaration fails to parse #105
Repeated structured type declaration fails to parse #105
Conversation
This one going OK, or would you like me to take a look? |
Feel free to jump in! I haven't had the opportunity to spend much time on this, recently. I was seemingly running into some challenges, but I can't recall (now) what those were. If you don't get a chance, don't worry about it, I'll poke around at this some more as time permits. Thank you! |
@engineerjoe440 is this just waiting on the tests to be fixed? I ran into the same issue and found this PR while trying to fix it. I was able to use the code in this PR to get through the issue. |
…-type-declaration-fails-to-parse
I think/hope that should do it - tests are passing locally. Mind giving the updated changes a spin @engineerjoe440 and @dfreiberger? |
I ran the tests locally and they passed. I tested against a couple of PLC structures previously failing due to repeated variables and it now parses these correctly. Approving PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In test_transformer.py/test_expression_roundtrip
there was an additional test added in https://github.com/klauer/blark/blob/efd3a57afa475229f53ae9eddabdb75efb794dde/blark/tests/test_transformer.py and then later removed: param("simple_type_declaration", "TypeName, TypeName2 : INT"),
Should we add this back in as param("structure_element_declaration", "TypeName, TypeName2 : INT"),
to extend coverage? Or is this already covered by the inclusion of repeated_declaration.st
?
The grammar modification is technically covered by the additional Thanks for giving blark a try and helping test this PR, @dfreiberger. I'll merge and tag this week if I don't hear back from @engineerjoe440. |
No description provided.