Replies: 5 comments
-
I think this would be a nice addition. I don't think there's a way to accomplish this without adding the feature to the rule. I've not used a rule without dependencies, it gets triggered by a separate task that depends on the output (regexp)? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I feel like it makes sense, since the task object already has the concrete
Yep. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I've also thought about this: rule %r"^members/(?<email>.*)/\d{2}-(?<step>\w+).timestamp$" =>
"members/%{email}/some-input-file" do |t|
email = t.matchdata[:email]
step = t.matchdata[:step]
# ...
end I.e. adding the ability to substitute in backreferences in the rule source. Currently, rule sources suffer from the same problem as the rule body: if you want to reference regex matchdata, you have to use a lambda as the dependency and re-apply the regex. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I stumbled upon this issue looking for how to access |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Oh hey, thanks for reminding me.
…On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Anurag Priyam ***@***.***> wrote:
I stumbled upon this issue looking for how to access matchdata inside a
rule. This would be a great addition, imho.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#141 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAD1vT-M-mathKpiMBZoe60ozhgaAU8ks5rECYkgaJpZM4I20fQ>
.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Here's part of a rule I just wrote the other day:
Notice how, after it matches, I have to re-apply the regex inside the rule definition in order to pull out named matchdata.
I was thinking of introducing something like this as an alternative:
Before I dive in, what do you think? And is there another way to accomplish this that I've missed?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions