xgo/parser: #2449 syntax definition for optional parameters #2452
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @xushiwei, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request introduces and refines the syntax definition for optional parameters within the HighlightsUsing Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces support for optional parameters, which is a great addition. The refactoring in the parser to handle the ? token is a good simplification. I've identified one area for improvement regarding the completeness of this feature for function return values. Please see my detailed comment.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2452 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 93.18% 92.20% -0.98%
==========================================
Files 34 33 -1
Lines 11619 11604 -15
==========================================
- Hits 10827 10700 -127
- Misses 626 726 +100
- Partials 166 178 +12 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| } | ||
|
|
||
| case token.LBRACK: | ||
| // name "[" type1, ..., typeN "]" or name "[" n "]" type |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing validation: Optional marker on variadic parameters
Consider adding validation to reject nonsensical combinations like func f(a ...int?). While Phase 2 might catch this semantically, Phase 1 should ideally reject obviously invalid syntax with a clear error message.
Suggested addition after parsing the optional marker:
if p.tok == token.QUESTION {
if ellipsis.IsValid() {
p.error(p.pos, "variadic parameters cannot be optional")
}
f.optional = p.pos
p.next()
}
Code Review SummaryOverall: Solid Phase 1 implementation with one critical bug that needs fixing. Key Issues:
Positive notes:
All agents approved except for the distribution logic bug. Fix needed before merge. |
No description provided.