added fix for newline and updated tests #4111
Conversation
Build Size ReportChanges to minified artifacts in 3 files changedTotal change +3 B View Changes
|
Build Size ReportChanges to minified artifacts in 3 files changedTotal change +7 B View Changes
|
Build Size ReportChanges to minified artifacts in 3 files changedTotal change +3 B View Changes
|
| // Optimized block scalar handling to avoid polynomial backtracking | ||
| const BLOCK_SCALAR = { | ||
| className: 'string', | ||
| begin: /[|>][-+\d]*\s*$/, // Block scalar indicator with modifiers |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason the regex here around +-number is much fuzzier than the tighter one below?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are you referring to the regex on line 113 and 126 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Referring to this looking much more correct:
'[\\|>]([-+]?[0-9]*)?[ ]*\\n'
ie, +- followed by digits, etc...
This regest would allow all sorts of -43+23423---13+++...
| { // multi line string | ||
| // Blocks start with a | or > followed by a newline | ||
| // | ||
| // Indentation of subsequent lines must be the same to | ||
| // be considered part of the block | ||
| className: 'string', | ||
| begin: '[\\|>]([1-9]?[+-])?[ ]*\\n( +)[^ ][^\\n]*\\n(\\2[^\\n]+\\n?)*' | ||
| begin: '[\\|>]([-+]?[0-9]*)?[ ]*\\n', // Support for block string indicators | ||
| relevance: 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Now that we have BLOCK_SCALAR which cases is this covering again?
Resolves #4090
before
after:
Checklist
CHANGES.md