Bumped up tree-sitter-swift dependency and resolved test failures #374
Conversation
This file contains 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
ketkarameya
suggested changes
Feb 17, 2023
Satyam1749
force-pushed
the
tree-dependency
branch
from
a75bfc1 to
f61b551
Compare
Satyam1749
changed the title
Satyam1749
force-pushed
the
tree-dependency
branch
4 times, most recently
from
428b4c7 to
84535d8
Compare
…changes to fix test failures
Satyam1749
force-pushed
the
tree-dependency
branch
from
84535d8 to
0dbfde8
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
A new version of
tree-sitter-swiftwas released to resolve issues reported by us (issue-272, issue-271) .The new version has an issue, which is critical for our usecase, So created a fork with fix and updated tree-sitter-swift dependency with the same.
Since the grammar for
!abchas changed in new release, A seprate rule for!TestEnum.stale_flag.isEnabledis not required and this rule would be handled with!trueand!falserules.