Search results

@Veracity am I looking for the right thing? I'm back at 25877 and still getting this behaviour, leading me to think I'm just not doing this right

This doesn't seem to be new... going back to 25970 (from last week) still seems to do that; unless I'm doing this wrong?

sadly, no, that was... that was kind of it (._. )

Soooo... @fronobulax is it possible to resume this conversation?

I did exactly that

(https://github.com/kolmafia/kolmafia/pull/311 would need to be merged first)

The vast, vast majority of the patch is just a switch of the method used to make an error, and, in most cases, adds a single line afterwards to allow us to keep using non-null values. example: Evaluable condition = this.parseExpression(parentScope); if (condition == null) {...

Well... given that I *know* that it's a lot to review, I guess I can deal with the fact that it could take, let's say, 4-5 days... (given the fact that it's all voluntary/hobby work)

...yes, typo. "Now". Clarification: parsing up to the end of the file *will be* fully safe. I *know* I have plugged all these unsafe holes on my side. The worries come from the transition to that state. Making small PRs means that I shouldn't commit all of it at once. What this means is that I...

O.k., so... error locations are not now fully implemented... The next question isn't where to go next, it's how should we get there. The next step is to make it so that we always parse up to the end of the file, regardless of errors encountered on the way. Now, this would be a pretty big...

...which would be weird, since it added the "again" correctly...

Mh... the relay decorator makes its own combat action bar in front of a certain HTML element, replacing the existing one, maybe it positioned itself in front of the wrong one...

Please, I'm currently just waiting for a reply from gausie. (#38 is currently just on hold) There's always going to be times where I'm waiting for review that I'll need to fill *somehow*...

So... any thoughts in regards to this?

The changes requested on #49 were actually the request to split it into multiple PRs, which has since been done (would be appreciated if that request for change could be removed, btw) That PR is actually waiting for review.

I'm currently in the process of trying to find uses for RequestTestBase (https://github.com/kolmafia/kolmafia/pull/175) (while waiting for progress on the language server side). One thing that I'm realizing is that it was probably a bad idea to simply have *respondIf* take a mere String as the...

Not sure I get you. Is this supposed to be a "you're meant to understand that it would be harder than writing tests" kind of thing? Are you implying it's feasible? I don't get how it would be possible without, you know, tests... Additionally, you mentioned that tests are also meant to define a...

@heeheehee thought on where to go next. I just made Token extend Range, and exposed the Location-related methods, so the next step would intuitively be to move on with giving a Location to the various parsetree classes. However, as it has been pointed out, testing for these Locations was...

@heeheehee tried something in https://github.com/kolmafia/kolmafia/pull/175 1- how does it look? 2- If it seems good, any idea of a test I could use/make to test the concept?

@heeheehee looking into HttpUtilities & ConnectionFactory; why exactly do you need to make a *mock* of ConnectionFactory? Looking at your example, can't you just replace your logic with class FakeConnection extends HttpUrlConnection { FakeConnection(int responseCode, String responseText) {...