-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 294
fix: has() on non-container types returns error instead of false #1298
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
Open
kodareef5
wants to merge
1
commit into
cel-expr:master
Choose a base branch
from
kodareef5:fix/default-error-on-bad-presence-test
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+24
−1
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Some comments aren't visible on the classic Files Changed page.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Could you add a test case that demonstrates the behavior addressed by this change? The presenceOnly flag is just an optimization to indicate that the return value isn't necessary - only the presence bit.
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.
Added test cases for
has()on int, string, bool, and null viadyn():{expr: `has(dyn(42).field)`, out: "no such key: field"}, {expr: `has(dyn('hello').field)`, out: "no such key: field"}, {expr: `has(dyn(true).field)`, out: "no such key: field"}, {expr: `has(dyn(null).field)`, out: "no such key: field"},On the
presenceOnlyflag -- you're right that it's an optimization. In this context it serves as the only available signal that distinguisheshas()(wheretestOnlyQualifieralways passespresenceOnly=true) from?.optional select (whereapplyQualifierspassespresenceOnly=false). The?.path needs to keep returning not-present on non-container types to preserveoptional.none()chaining, whilehas()on a raw primitive likedyn(42).fieldshould error rather than silently returning false.I initially tried dropping the
presenceOnlycheck and erroring for both paths, but that breaks the?.tests ({0: dyn(0)}[?0].?invalidexpectsoptional.none(), not an error). Happy to restructure if you'd prefer a different approach, e.g. threading a separate flag through the qualifier chain.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.
These cases error properly though when
EnableErrorOnBadPresenceTest(true)is enabled, so I think that's why I'm not clear on what the issue is that you're trying to address.