generate error for unused "do" expression in EEx - #10566
Merged
josevalim merged 2 commits intoDec 14, 2020
Merged
Conversation
josevalim
reviewed
Dec 13, 2020
Member
|
I would also include another test that checks that it does not warn for single expressions :) |
Member
|
@fertapric we don't need said test because otherwise the suite would be warning all the time. Generally speaking, we don't test that warnings are not emitted, because the tests would emit warnings otherwise and because it means we can't run tests concurrently. |
josevalim
reviewed
Dec 13, 2020
Member
|
💚 💙 💜 💛 ❤️ |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This PR adds a new compilation error when EEx encounters a
doexpression without the<%=modifier, since this is nearly always unintentional. For example, take this block:At first glance, all seems well, and in the context of a full application it may take quite some time to work out that nothing is being output because you're missing the
<%=opening tag. The only case I can think of where adoblock is valid without the<%=opening tag is something like this:...but this could trivially be refactored to the (IMO) cleaner:
Credit to @halostatue for suggesting this https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/FKA9PancUm0/m/KzkT1vWuAAAJ
Closes #10536.