gh-118235: Move RAISE_SYNTAX_ERROR actions to invalid rules and make sure they stay there #119731
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
…validate
Add a validator that makes sure RAISE_SYNTAX_ERROR only appears in
invalid rules. This looks at the action text, as a string.
Move all such actions to invalid rules. This works for two of them,
but not the type_param rules, where the SyntaxError that ends up
being raised is the one from &&'(' in the function definition.
… spec (pythonGH-118237)" This reverts commit ef940de. The highlighter change is no longer needed, since all RAISE_SYNTAX_ERROR actions are in invalid rules.
visit_Alt should only be called from GrammarValidator.validate_rule, when self.rulename is a string, but mypy doesn't know that.
JelleZijlstra
approved these changes
May 29, 2024
|
Excellent approach! |
pablogsal
approved these changes
May 29, 2024
|
Thanks! |
noahbkim
pushed a commit
to hudson-trading/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2024
… make sure they stay there (pythonGH-119731) The Full Grammar specification in the docs omits rule actions, so grammar rules that raise a syntax error looked like valid syntax. This was solved in ef940de by hiding those rules in the custom syntax highlighter. This moves all syntax-error alternatives to invalid rules, adds a validator that ensures that actions containing RAISE_SYNTAX_ERROR are in invalid rules, and reverts the syntax highlighter hack.
estyxx
pushed a commit
to estyxx/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2024
… make sure they stay there (pythonGH-119731) The Full Grammar specification in the docs omits rule actions, so grammar rules that raise a syntax error looked like valid syntax. This was solved in ef940de by hiding those rules in the custom syntax highlighter. This moves all syntax-error alternatives to invalid rules, adds a validator that ensures that actions containing RAISE_SYNTAX_ERROR are in invalid rules, and reverts the syntax highlighter hack.
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.
The Full Grammar specification in the docs omits rule actions, so grammar rules that raise a syntax error looked like valid syntax.
This was solved in #118237 by hiding those rules in the custom syntax highlighter.
This moves all syntax-error alternatives to
invalidrules, adds a validator that ensures that actions containingRAISE_SYNTAX_ERRORare in invalid rules, and reverts the syntax highlighter hack.📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--119731.org.readthedocs.build/