Honour disable comments in FIELD_NUMBERS_ORDER_ASCENDING #566
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,148 @@ | ||
| package rules_test | ||
|
|
||
| import ( | ||
| "reflect" | ||
| "testing" | ||
|
|
||
| "github.com/yoheimuta/go-protoparser/v4/parser" | ||
| "github.com/yoheimuta/go-protoparser/v4/parser/meta" | ||
| "github.com/yoheimuta/protolint/internal/addon/rules" | ||
| "github.com/yoheimuta/protolint/linter/report" | ||
| "github.com/yoheimuta/protolint/linter/rule" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| // TestFieldNumbersOrderAscendingRule_Apply_disableComments checks that the per-line | ||
| // disable comments are honoured by this rule. | ||
| // See https://github.com/yoheimuta/protolint/issues/558 | ||
| func TestFieldNumbersOrderAscendingRule_Apply_disableComments(t *testing.T) { | ||
| disableThis := func() *parser.Comment { | ||
| return &parser.Comment{Raw: "// protolint:disable:this FIELD_NUMBERS_ORDER_ASCENDING"} | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| tests := []struct { | ||
| name string | ||
| inputProto *parser.Proto | ||
| wantFailures []report.Failure | ||
| }{ | ||
| { | ||
| name: "no failures for out-of-order fields disabled by an inline comment", | ||
| inputProto: &parser.Proto{ | ||
| ProtoBody: []parser.Visitee{ | ||
| &parser.Message{ | ||
| MessageBody: []parser.Visitee{ | ||
| &parser.Field{ | ||
| FieldName: "a", | ||
| FieldNumber: "2", | ||
| InlineComment: disableThis(), | ||
| }, | ||
| &parser.Field{ | ||
| FieldName: "b", | ||
| FieldNumber: "1", | ||
| InlineComment: disableThis(), | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| name: "no failures for out-of-order enum fields disabled by an inline comment", | ||
| inputProto: &parser.Proto{ | ||
| ProtoBody: []parser.Visitee{ | ||
| &parser.Enum{ | ||
| EnumBody: []parser.Visitee{ | ||
| &parser.EnumField{ | ||
| Ident: "A", | ||
| Number: "2", | ||
| InlineComment: disableThis(), | ||
| }, | ||
| &parser.EnumField{ | ||
| Ident: "B", | ||
| Number: "1", | ||
| InlineComment: disableThis(), | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| name: "a field following disabled ones is still checked against them", | ||
| inputProto: &parser.Proto{ | ||
| ProtoBody: []parser.Visitee{ | ||
| &parser.Message{ | ||
| MessageBody: []parser.Visitee{ | ||
| &parser.Field{ | ||
| FieldName: "a", | ||
| FieldNumber: "2", | ||
| InlineComment: disableThis(), | ||
| }, | ||
| &parser.Field{ | ||
| FieldName: "b", | ||
| FieldNumber: "1", | ||
| InlineComment: disableThis(), | ||
| }, | ||
| &parser.Field{ | ||
| FieldName: "c", | ||
| FieldNumber: "1", | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| wantFailures: []report.Failure{ | ||
| report.Failuref( | ||
| meta.Position{}, | ||
| "FIELD_NUMBERS_ORDER_ASCENDING", | ||
| string(rule.SeverityError), | ||
| "fields %s and %s have the same number %d", | ||
| "b", "c", 1, | ||
| ), | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| name: "a field without the comment is still checked", | ||
| inputProto: &parser.Proto{ | ||
| ProtoBody: []parser.Visitee{ | ||
| &parser.Message{ | ||
| MessageBody: []parser.Visitee{ | ||
| &parser.Field{ | ||
| FieldName: "a", | ||
| FieldNumber: "2", | ||
| }, | ||
| &parser.Field{ | ||
| FieldName: "b", | ||
| FieldNumber: "1", | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| wantFailures: []report.Failure{ | ||
| report.Failuref( | ||
| meta.Position{}, | ||
| "FIELD_NUMBERS_ORDER_ASCENDING", | ||
| string(rule.SeverityError), | ||
| "field %s should be after %s (ascending order expected)", | ||
| "a", "b", | ||
| ), | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| for _, test := range tests { | ||
| t.Run(test.name, func(t *testing.T) { | ||
| r := rules.NewFieldNumbersOrderAscendingRule(rule.SeverityError) | ||
|
|
||
| got, err := r.Apply(test.inputProto) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| t.Errorf("got err %v, but want nil", err) | ||
| return | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if !reflect.DeepEqual(got, test.wantFailures) { | ||
| t.Errorf("got %v, but want %v", got, test.wantFailures) | ||
| } | ||
| }) | ||
| } | ||
| } |
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.
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.
When a persistent disable is already active upon entering a message or enum,
extendedDisableRuleVisitorskips this method, so this newly created interpreter never sees anenableattached to a field and checks cannot resume for later fields in that body. Conversely, if this local interpreter encounters a disable after an earlier ordering failure,return !hasErrorprevents the wrapper from traversing the children, so the disable is not carried to later declarations. Both cases violate the documented disable-until-enable-or-EOF behavior; the ordering logic needs to participate in the wrapper's single stateful traversal rather than maintaining an independent interpreter.Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.