-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 613
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
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
Idea: Preserve matchdata in rules #141
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)? |
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I feel like it makes sense, since the task object already has the concrete
Yep. |
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. |
I stumbled upon this issue looking for how to access |
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>
.
|
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
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?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: