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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
fix: use snakeyaml-engine-kmp for validation #281
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix: use snakeyaml-engine-kmp for validation #281
Changes from all commits
c3e0823
158b6ea
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The only remaining remark I have for this change is a regression in the level of details for this single case ("named values must be integer"). With the proposed change, the user doesn't know which YAML and which input/output is affected.
However in practice, the lack of details is present in many other cases. I appreciate the fact that checking this type is done together with checking other types, so this PR brings some kind of consistency to the behavior and code structure, even if it introduces a regression in one.
I'm fine with merging it as is, but ideally we should include details about the affected YAML file and input/output in all cases (just articulating it, not saying you should do it). We should rethink if parsing and validation should really be done separately - maybe it's an artificial distinction here, and it's easier to make it in one go?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, maybe it can be combined.
I basically kept the changes minimal by replacing the parsing part, only doing some slight improvements on the way and loosing that one type of clarity.
But it can probably be rewritten to provide better errors for all cases, yeah.