Skip to content

feat: flatten childToken arrays#3172

Merged
UziTech merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
flatten-walkTokens
Jan 27, 2024
Merged

feat: flatten childToken arrays#3172
UziTech merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
flatten-walkTokens

Conversation

@UziTech
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@UziTech UziTech commented Jan 20, 2024

Marked version: 11.1.1

Description

Flatten custom extension childToken arrays before running them through walk tokens. This will allow custom extensions to have child tokens like the table token where the rows field is an array of arrays of tokens.

Contributor

  • Test(s) exist to ensure functionality and minimize regression (if no tests added, list tests covering this PR); or,
  • no tests required for this PR.
  • If submitting new feature, it has been documented in the appropriate places.

Committer

In most cases, this should be a different person than the contributor.

@vercel
Copy link
Copy Markdown

vercel bot commented Jan 20, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Updated (UTC)
marked-website ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview Jan 20, 2024 8:02pm

@UziTech
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

UziTech commented Jan 20, 2024 •
edited
Loading

@calculuschild this should work to walk arrays of arrays of tokens.

One question: Should we flatten with infinite depth? or should we only flatten 1 or 2 levels deep?

The only issue I found with doing Infinite depth is there can be a stack overflow if there is a circular dependency. I don't think that is a big issue but something to think about.

a = [1]
b = [2]
a.push(b)
b.push(a)
a.flat(Infinity)

calculuschild
calculuschild approved these changes Jan 21, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@calculuschild calculuschild left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think infinite depth shouldn't be a problem. If people are designing extensions in such a way to cause a cyclic dependency, that's a fault of the extension, not Marked, right?

@UziTech
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

UziTech commented Jan 21, 2024

I agree. This shouldn't affect core marked at all. Only extensions

styfle
styfle approved these changes Jan 25, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@styfle styfle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you could also use a large-ish depth instead of Infinity, perhaps 1000, and still cover most use cases.

But I agree, its only for self-referencing extensions which is probably a small minority.

@UziTech UziTech merged commit 4826841 into master Jan 27, 2024
@UziTech UziTech deleted the flatten-walkTokens branch January 27, 2024 00:26
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 27, 2024
@semantic-release-bot
chore(release): 11.2.0 [skip ci]
f0507cb 
# [11.2.0](v11.1.1...v11.2.0) (2024-01-27)

### Bug Fixes

* Fix ENOENT error message in CLI ([#3165](#3165)) ([bf44ae8](bf44ae8))

### Features

* flatten childToken arrays ([#3172](#3172)) ([4826841](4826841))
@mnathsnyk mnathsnyk mentioned this pull request Mar 15, 2024
Open
This was referenced Jun 19, 2024
Open
Closed
@leonardoadame leonardoadame mentioned this pull request Jul 3, 2024
Open
@akanchhaS akanchhaS mentioned this pull request Jul 4, 2024
Open
@leonardoadame leonardoadame mentioned this pull request Jul 15, 2024
Open
@akanchhaS akanchhaS mentioned this pull request Jul 16, 2024
Open
@akanchhaS akanchhaS mentioned this pull request Jul 25, 2024
Open
@leonardoadame leonardoadame mentioned this pull request Jul 26, 2024
Open
@mightysai1997 mightysai1997 mentioned this pull request Jul 31, 2024
Open
@snyk-io snyk-io bot mentioned this pull request Aug 12, 2024
Open
@clifford-snyk-github clifford-snyk-github mentioned this pull request Aug 15, 2024
Open
@leonardoadame leonardoadame mentioned this pull request Aug 19, 2024
Open
@akanchhaS akanchhaS mentioned this pull request Aug 19, 2024
Open
@akanchhaS akanchhaS mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2024
Open
@leonardoadame leonardoadame mentioned this pull request Aug 29, 2024
Open
@leonardoadame leonardoadame mentioned this pull request Sep 9, 2024
Open
This was referenced Sep 13, 2024
Open
Open
Open
Open
This was referenced Sep 23, 2024
Open
Open
Open
@akanchhaS akanchhaS mentioned this pull request Sep 24, 2024
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@styfle styfle styfle approved these changes

@calculuschild calculuschild calculuschild approved these changes

Assignees

@styfle styfle

@calculuschild calculuschild

@joshbruce joshbruce

@davisjam davisjam

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Register Walktokens Behavior for extensions with different token structure

5 participants

@UziTech @styfle @calculuschild @joshbruce @davisjam