[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#59633: 29.0.50; tree-sitter-bash: Incorrect behaviour of heredocs wi
From: |
Yuan Fu |
Subject: |
bug#59633: 29.0.50; tree-sitter-bash: Incorrect behaviour of heredocs with expansions |
Date: |
Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:50:20 -0800 |
> On Dec 2, 2022, at 8:26 AM, miha@kamnitnik.top wrote:
>
> Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> miha@kamnitnik.top writes:
>>
>>> 1. Visit empty buffer test in fundamental mode (C-x b test RET)
>>> 2. Insert
>>>
>>> tee << EOF
>>> text1 $var
>>> text2 $(echo cmd)
>>> text3
>>> $var2
>>> EOF
>>>
>>> 3. Put point before "text2"
>>> 4. M-x load-library RET treesit RET
>>> 5. M-: (treesit-node-children (treesit-node-at (point) 'bash))
>>>
>>> => (#<treesit-node (simple_expansion) in 18-22>
>>> #<treesit-node (command_substitution) in 29-40>)
>>>
>>> Note that this list is incorrect, "$var2" at the end of heredoc is
>>> missing.
>>>
>>> 6. M-: (treesit-node-first-child-for-pos (treesit-node-at (point) 'bash)
>>> (point))
>>>
>>> => nil
>>>
>>> Expected return value here is #<treesit-node (command_substitution) in
>>> 29-40>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if this bug is on Emacs, tree-sitter-bash or even
>>> tree-sitter itself and I don't know how to check.
>>>
>>> tree-sitter-bash version: 0.19.0.r19.g77cf8a7-1
>>> tree-sitter version: 0.20.7-1
>>>
>>> Thanks and best regards.
>>
>> Thanks. This is the tree produced by tree-sitter, does it match your
>> expectation?
>>
>> (heredoc_body
>> (simple_expansion $ (variable_name))
>> (command_substitution $(
>> (command
>> name: (command_name (word))
>> argument: (word))
>> ))
>> (simple_expansion $ (variable_name)))
>>
>> treesit-node-at gives you the _smallest_ node at point, maybe that’s why
>> you didn’t see expected behavior?
>>
>> Yuan
>
> The latest commit to tree-sitter-bash is
>
> commit 4488aa41406547e478636a4fcfd24f5bbc3f2f74
> Author: João P. L. Carvalho <jaopaulolc@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun Nov 27 20:39:41 2022 -0700
>
> Fix scanning of heredoc_body to allow empty bodies (#137).
>
> Seems like it has fixed the problem described in the 5. step and the
> tree produced by tree-sitter is now expected.
>
> The problem in the 6. step is still present though. With point in front
> of command_substitution, on would expect
>
> (treesit-node-first-child-for-pos (treesit-node-at (point) 'bash) (point))
>
> to return the command_substitution node instead of returning nil.
What’s the return value of (treesit-node-at (point)) at that point? Probably
the command_substitution node, and since it doesn’t have any children,
treesit-node-first-child-for-pos would return nil.
Yuan