Merged
Conversation
Owner
|
I don't see the harm in allowing |
Contributor
Author
|
So should I just revert the parser changes and add the missing fields to |
Owner
|
Yes, I think so. I'm not bothered by |
Make default value of `default` `True'
source-repository & flag sections
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
there were missing fields forsource-repository&flagsections now don't allowifconditions,source-repositorysections and the default value ofdefaultfields inflags is True.I wrote separate parsers forsource-repository&flagsections, since they share basically no fields with other sections and don't allow conditions. I'm open to suggestions on how to best reduce code duplication.