-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
(closes #2684) Fix the failure case when we have a WHERE construct with no array index notation. #2687
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2687 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 99.86% 99.86% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 354 354
Lines 49082 49046 -36
==========================================
- Hits 49018 48982 -36
Misses 64 64 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
…ransforming other non-array notated ranges
@sergisiso ready for a first look, I'm not super sure on the implementation details so its possible there's some things we're not testing for that i've missed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @LonelyCat124 I think it's a step in the right directions. See comments inline but essentially I would like to see some more testing about what happens with "references" where we can not figure out its type ow when we have different kinds of intrinsics.
src/psyclone/tests/psyir/frontend/fparser2_where_handler_test.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/psyclone/tests/psyir/frontend/fparser2_where_handler_test.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
I think this is ready for another look @sergisiso . The outstanding thing I've not addressed is intrinsics (which were already "forbidden" in fparser2 before this change) - I'm not sure if/when it makes sense for them to exist. |
@LonelyCat124 wrt the failing integration test, as we discussed last week, we need to do the following change:
In
|
I've set the integration tests running again now with those changes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@LonelyCat124 I made changes in some comments and pointed out some additional issues in #2722. But since this already fixes some of the reported issues and it passes the integration tests, it is a good amount of progress to merge this and defer remaining issues to a future PR. This is ready to merge.
No description provided.