-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.5k
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
protoc: trailing comment on last line of file (with no subsequent newline) ignored #12081
Comments
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 28, 2023
Fixes #12081. The issue was the call to `MaybeDetachComment`: the conditional assumed that there was a next token, which was on the same line as the previous one, making attribution unclear. However, if there is no next token, we should not detach. The actual fix is a one-liner. The rest of this PR is updates to the tests to verify this behavior under a handful of scenarios. Closes #12082 COPYBARA_INTEGRATE_REVIEW=#12082 from jhump:jh/fix-trailing-comment-attribution 767e41c FUTURE_COPYBARA_INTEGRATE_REVIEW=#12082 from jhump:jh/fix-trailing-comment-attribution 767e41c PiperOrigin-RevId: 513017635
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 28, 2023
Fixes #12081. The issue was the call to `MaybeDetachComment`: the conditional assumed that there was a next token, which was on the same line as the previous one, making attribution unclear. However, if there is no next token, we should not detach. The actual fix is a one-liner. The rest of this PR is updates to the tests to verify this behavior under a handful of scenarios. Closes #12082 COPYBARA_INTEGRATE_REVIEW=#12082 from jhump:jh/fix-trailing-comment-attribution 767e41c FUTURE_COPYBARA_INTEGRATE_REVIEW=#12082 from jhump:jh/fix-trailing-comment-attribution 767e41c PiperOrigin-RevId: 513017635
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 28, 2023
Fixes #12081. The issue was the call to `MaybeDetachComment`: the conditional assumed that there was a next token, which was on the same line as the previous one, making attribution unclear. However, if there is no next token, we should not detach. The actual fix is a one-liner. The rest of this PR is updates to the tests to verify this behavior under a handful of scenarios. Closes #12082 COPYBARA_INTEGRATE_REVIEW=#12082 from jhump:jh/fix-trailing-comment-attribution 767e41c FUTURE_COPYBARA_INTEGRATE_REVIEW=#12082 from jhump:jh/fix-trailing-comment-attribution 767e41c PiperOrigin-RevId: 513017635
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 28, 2023
Fixes #12081. The issue was the call to `MaybeDetachComment`: the conditional assumed that there was a next token, which was on the same line as the previous one, making attribution unclear. However, if there is no next token, we should not detach. The actual fix is a one-liner. The rest of this PR is updates to the tests to verify this behavior under a handful of scenarios. Closes #12082 COPYBARA_INTEGRATE_REVIEW=#12082 from jhump:jh/fix-trailing-comment-attribution 767e41c FUTURE_COPYBARA_INTEGRATE_REVIEW=#12082 from jhump:jh/fix-trailing-comment-attribution 767e41c PiperOrigin-RevId: 513017635
deannagarcia
pushed a commit
to deannagarcia/protobuf
that referenced
this issue
Feb 28, 2023
…ocolbuffers#12082) Fixes protocolbuffers#12081. The issue was the call to `MaybeDetachComment`: the conditional assumed that there was a next token, which was on the same line as the previous one, making attribution unclear. However, if there is no next token, we should not detach. The actual fix is a one-liner. The rest of this PR is updates to the tests to verify this behavior under a handful of scenarios. Closes protocolbuffers#12082 COPYBARA_INTEGRATE_REVIEW=protocolbuffers#12082 from jhump:jh/fix-trailing-comment-attribution 767e41c PiperOrigin-RevId: 513046172
googleberg
removed
the
untriaged
auto added to all issues by default when created.
label
Feb 17, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Apparently I introduced a bug in #10660. 🤦
If the last line in the file has a trailing comment and no trailing newline, that comment is effectively ignored (it gets interpreted as a detached comment before the EOF instead of a trailing comment on the preceding token).
Here's a simple example:
Importantly, if the file above has no trailing newline (i.e. the last byte in the file is the period of the trailing comment), then that comment does not make it into source code info. One would expect it to be a trailing comment for the package statement.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: