Stop accepting Document objects as CodeObject#comment
#1210
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
tompng
force-pushed
the
document_is_not_a_comment
branch
from
523622d to
7a297e8
Compare
st0012
reviewed
Nov 30, 2024
Comment on lines
64
to
70
| if comment.is_a?(Array) | ||
| comment.each do |c| | ||
| @comments << extract_comment(c) | ||
| end | ||
| else | ||
| raise TypeError, "unknown comment type: #{comment.inspect}" | ||
| comment = extract_comment(comment) | ||
| @comments << comment unless comment.empty? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can it be further simplified to something like:
comments = Array(comment)
comments.each do |c|
extracted_comment = extract_comment(comment)
@comments << extracted_comment unless extracted_comment.empty?
end| end | ||
| else | ||
| raise RDoc::Error, "BUG: unknown comment class #{@comments.class}" | ||
| @comments.map do |comment| |
| end | ||
| else | ||
| raise RDoc::Error, "BUG: unknown comment class #{@comments.class}" | ||
| @comments.delete_if do |my_comment| |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we also rename these locals to something like stored_comment and target_comment?
@comments.delete_if do |stored_comment|
stored_comment.file == target_comment.file
end| formatter.start_accepting | ||
| formatter.accept_document(content) | ||
| formatter.end_accepting | ||
| comment.text |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for simplifying this part too ❤️
st0012
force-pushed
the
document_is_not_a_comment
branch
from
ed4589e to
ad62c57
Compare
…ect.comment CodeObject#comment is normally String or Comment, but Marshal.dump and load creates CodeObject with comment=Document. Some method requires Document stored in CodeObject#comment, some requires Comment. We should stop mixing Document with Comment because it is mixing huge complexity and potential bugs to RDoc codebase.
tompng
force-pushed
the
document_is_not_a_comment
branch
from
ad62c57 to
4955198
Compare
st0012
changed the title
Document objects as CodeObject#comment
st0012
changed the title
Document objects as CodeObject#commentDocument objects as CodeObject#comment
st0012
approved these changes
Jan 28, 2025
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.
CodeObject#commentis normally String or Comment, but Marshal dump and load creates CodeObject with Document as a comment. So there are two types of CodeObject that shouldn't be mixed:This is implicitly doubling the number of total classes in RDoc. It is mixing huge complexity and potential bugs to RDoc codebase. Some method only accepts ParsedCodeObject. Some method only accepts MarshalLoadedCodeObject. It is difficult to know.
It looks like document is assigned to comment to represent parse-result-cached comment. Alternatively,
Comment#document=can be used to represent it.Ideally, we should avoid mixing String with Comment, but String it is too frequently used. I think it will be easy to remove mixing String after switching to PrismRuby Parser.
I believe we should do this refactor someday but maybe not before Ruby 3.4 because the release date is pretty close.