Skip to content
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

Update Parsers support #327

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 1, 2021
Merged

Update Parsers support #327

merged 3 commits into from
Aug 1, 2021

Conversation

quinnj
Copy link
Member

@quinnj quinnj commented Jul 30, 2021

Update the Parsers compat versions to "1, 2". As of v1.0.5,
Parsers.tryparse ensured the full input buffer was consumed when
parsing a value (as mentioned desirable in the now-deleted comment in
float_from_bytes). So dropping support for older Parsers versions
allows us to trust Parsers.tryparse, and those pre-1.0 versions are
pretty old at this point anyway.

I locally ran the JSON.jl tests under both Parsers v2.0.1 and v1.1.1 and
ensured both were passing, so it shouldn't matter which version of
Parsers ends up getting installed if there are other packages which
don't 2.0 yet.

Update the Parsers compat versions to `"1, 2"`. As of v1.0.5,
`Parsers.tryparse` ensured the full input buffer was consumed when
parsing a value (as mentioned desirable in the now-deleted comment in
`float_from_bytes`). So dropping support for older Parsers versions
allows us to trust `Parsers.tryparse`, and those pre-1.0 versions are
pretty old at this point anyway.

I locally ran the JSON.jl tests under both Parsers v2.0.1 and v1.1.1 and
ensured both were passing, so it shouldn't matter which version of
Parsers ends up getting installed if there are other packages which
don't 2.0 yet.
@KristofferC
Copy link
Member

KristofferC commented Jul 30, 2021

I locally ran the JSON.jl tests under both Parsers v2.0.1 and v1.1.1 and
ensured both were passing,

CI seems to fail so perhaps there is some difference between your local state and CI?

@KristofferC
Copy link
Member

Ah, I see JuliaData/Parsers.jl#85 now.

@quinnj
Copy link
Member Author

quinnj commented Jul 30, 2021

Yeah, it looks like @view bytes[to:from] isn't supported when bytes is a string either on 1.0.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 30, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #327 (b422e58) into master (1c24980) will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #327      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.53%   99.51%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files           7        5       -2     
  Lines         428      410      -18     
==========================================
- Hits          426      408      -18     
  Misses          2        2              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/Parser.jl 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/JSON.jl 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/Common.jl
src/bytes.jl

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1c24980...b422e58. Read the comment docs.

@quinnj
Copy link
Member Author

quinnj commented Jul 30, 2021

Ok, this looks good now.

@quinnj quinnj merged commit 8687254 into master Aug 1, 2021
@quinnj quinnj deleted the jq/parsers2.0 branch August 1, 2021 04:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants