AsciiDoc: Some regexes are too greedy #3481
Merged
Conversation
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
JaKXz
approved these changes
Jun 24, 2022
Collaborator
JaKXz
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice! My only nit would be to break up the large test file for readability but that's not a blocker.
Member
Author
I see what you mean, but that was intentional. Regexes that are too greedy might come up again, and long test snippets are more likely to include examples that trigger these bugs. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #3480.
We had a few regexes of the form
/^(some prefix)(?:\r?\n|\r)(?:[\s\S]*(?:\r?\n|\r))??\1$/m. This is incorrect as the greedy[\s\S]*will overrun all occurrences of the captured prefix until the last occurrence is found. I replaced it with/^(some prefix)$[\s\S]*?^\1$/m.