Conversation
a3de733 to
0a6326c
Compare
0a6326c to
182bd56
Compare
fvictorio
approved these changes
Mar 8, 2026
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
I found out these 3 nodes were missing a call to
updateMetadatain their constructor. This might slightly change the place where comments are placed.there are 2 cases when a node doesn't need a call.
TerminalNodeor plain strings.items.AbicoderPragmaused to be the first kind but was updated withNomicFoundation/[email protected]and I missed to add the call. (0bbea0a) this is a very simple node and very unlikely to trigger an unexpected format with an ill placed comment but I'd like to keep things consistent.ArrayExpressionandTupleExpressionhad a node calleditemswhich I didn't notice was not an array, when I cleaned up the call toupdateMetadatasince it was not needed for arrays anymore. (5ac8158)