Conversation
* Yaml.asScalar() -> ?[]const u8, * Yaml.asList() -> ?List, * Yaml.asMap() -> ?Map, as opposed to being fallible and return `error.TypeMismatch` (this should be thrown by the caller instead).
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
First breaking change is that now
Yaml.as*accessor return?*instead of!*. For example,Yaml.asScalarnow returns?[]const u8. This shifts the responsibility to throw an appropriate error such aserror.TypeMismatchto the caller, but simplifies checking for the underlying raw Yaml value.Next, while plugging in latest nightly
zig-yamlintobold, I've run into an issue where trying to parse a simple struct as a list of structs would cause an unexpected panic. Turns out, we outright assumed that when enteringparsePointerand expecting a slice we would assume that the underlying raw Yaml value has to be a list which is obviously wrong. This did not surface before as we didn't really have any meaningful support for pointer parsing until recently.I've now provided a fix and added a smoke test.