Fix Syntax Removal #7879
Draft
Fix Syntax Removal #7879
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
This resolves the issue with removals not working
APickledWalrus
added
the
bug
APickledWalrus
requested review from
cheeezburga and
erenkarakal
and removed request for
a team
skriptlang-automation
bot
added
the
needs reviews
skriptlang-automation
bot
removed
the
needs reviews
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Problem
Unregistering syntax via
SyntaxRegistry#unregisterwill often fail silently. The issue was caused by the comparator used inSyntaxRegisternot enforcing a consistent order for uniqueSyntaxInfos. Currently, elements are ordered first byPriority. Within the group of elements that share a Priority, it is ordered by registration-order (that is, which one was registered first). This ordering is random and not derived from any properties of the SyntaxInfos themselves. Thus, if I register some SyntaxInfo "A" and then register a whole bunch more, there is no guarantee that a call likeregister.contains(A)will be successful (it may not reach "A" due to the underlying data structure used).Solution
The issue is resolved by enforcing a consistent ordering. That is, there will always be a consistent ordering for any collection of SyntaxInfos. This means it is no longer safe to simply change registration order to fix conflicts. Of course, this was never safe, and one should instead use Priorities - they are designed for this issue! This consistency accomplished by using hashcodes for ordering SyntaxInfos that share a priority.
Testing Completed
A new JUnit test was introduced in
SyntaxRegistryTest.Supporting Information
n/a
Completes: none
Related: none