-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 89
Addresses issue #1283. #1286
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
Addresses issue #1283. #1286
Conversation
Updates §6.2.5 as per issue and also changes the descriptive style to the proscriptive requirement of the Standard
@jskeet – I thought I’d fixed the bad references but I missed a § in the one that is still causing the fail, simple fix. However I’ve left it with the error as the Word converter is throwing an exception you might wish to look into. If you drop me a line when you’d like me to remove the stray § I'll push it out. |
Thanks Nigel - will try to get to that in the next few days. |
@Nigel-Ecma: Having looked at the error, that feels like the Word Converter "core" itself "working as intended" - it's reporting the error nicely. The error is coming from Bill: the job that contains the failure is https://github.com/dotnet/csharpstandard/actions/runs/13755098000/job/38461209510 (I personally don't mind a slightly messy error, so long as it really does fail, and the underlying failure is clear - but I expect it could be tidier.) @Nigel-Ecma: Having captured that information (which Bill can choose to address or not) I think you're fine to remove the stray §. |
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.
I like all the changes here (although as noted we might want to make the whitespace changes separately, and across the board - and then possibly lint for them).
I think @gafter's input would be useful to validate the change as well. What looks reasonable to me can still be entirely incorrect...
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.
This LGTM once we address open comments (async or in the meeting)
The exception from building the check result is what I'm trying to address in #1269. Quick background: When our tools run on a PR, they run in the context of the PR branch, which is often in a fork. That means the tools don't have write access to the base repo. That's a better security practice. I've asked for some help to get that working, but no answer yet. If I can't get unstuck, I'll remove the extra logging. We'll still get the output, but it won't be integrated into the files tab. |
After discussion and raising #1294, we are happy. |
Updates §6.2.5 as per issue and also changes the descriptive style to the proscriptive requirement of the Standard.
Issuing as draft to allow time for comments on #1283.
Note: In #1283 I promised test cases for type_argument_list parsing. These have been incorporated into a grammar testing update, #1284, and can be found in
tools/GrammarTesting/Tests/Parsing/Samples/v8
samplesType argument list
andTAL Query expressions
.