Support for regexes in 'except' #40
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
rzhw
approved these changes
Jun 9, 2021
I can definitely see this is a natural next step, happy to take a PR for this as well. Given the current approach of checking exceptSet and then iterating to check for regexes every time I'm somewhat concerned whether long run this might cause performance issues (versus splitting Thanks again! Will merge and do a release |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Closes #38
Regexes can now be present in
exceptin addition to strings.except: [/full-.*/, ...]would both skipfull-heightandfull-width.Instead of checking if a node value is present in the
exceptSet, I moved the logic to a function namedskip.Allowing
exceptto be a function would also be nice, what do you think?