<!--
if this PR closes one or more issues, you can automatically link the PR
with
them by using one of the [*linking
keywords*](https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword),
e.g.
- this PR should close #xxxx
- fixes #xxxx
you can also mention related issues, PRs or discussions!
-->
# Description
- fixes: #5517
- fixes: #9250
For the following commands:
```
ls
# | le
| length
```
I found that it generates a bad lite parsing result:
```
LiteBlock {
block: [
LitePipeline {
commands: [
Command(None, LiteCommand { comments: [], parts: [Span { start: 138600, end: 138602 }] })
]
},
LitePipeline {
commands: [
Command(Some(Span { start: 138610, end: 138611 }),
LiteCommand { comments: [Span { start: 138603, end: 138609 }], parts: [Span { start: 138612, end: 138618 }] })
]
}
]
}
```
Which should contains only one `LitePipeline`, and the second
`LitePipeline` is generated because of `Eol` lex token:
```
[
Token { contents: Item, span: Span { start: 138600, end: 138602 } },
Token { contents: Eol, span: Span { start: 138602, end: 138603 } }, // it generates the second LitePipeline
Token { contents: Comment, span: Span { start: 138603, end: 138609 } },
Token { contents: Pipe, span: Span { start: 138610, end: 138611 } },
Token { contents: Item, span: Span { start: 138612, end: 138618 } }
]
```
To fix the issue, I remove the `Eol` token when we meet `Comment` right
after `Eol`, then it will generate a good LiteBlock, and everything will
work fine.
### After the fix:
Token:
```
[
Token { contents: Item, span: Span { start: 138618, end: 138620 } },
Token { contents: Comment, span: Span { start: 138622, end: 138628 } },
Token { contents: Pipe, span: Span { start: 138629, end: 138630 } },
Token { contents: Item, span: Span { start: 138631, end: 138637 } }
]
```
LiteBlock:
```
LiteBlock {
block: [
LitePipeline {
commands: [
Command(
None,
LiteCommand {
comments: [Span { start: 138622, end: 138628 }],
parts: [Span { start: 138618, end: 138620 }]
}
),
Command(
Some(Span { start: 138629, end: 138630 }),
LiteCommand { comments: [], parts: [Span { start: 138631, end: 138637 }] })] }] }
```
<!--
Thank you for improving Nushell. Please, check our [contributing
guide](../CONTRIBUTING.md) and talk to the core team before making major
changes.
Description of your pull request goes here. **Provide examples and/or
screenshots** if your changes affect the user experience.
-->
# User-Facing Changes
<!-- List of all changes that impact the user experience here. This
helps us keep track of breaking changes. -->
# Tests + Formatting
<!--
Don't forget to add tests that cover your changes.
Make sure you've run and fixed any issues with these commands:
- `cargo fmt --all -- --check` to check standard code formatting (`cargo
fmt --all` applies these changes)
- `cargo clippy --workspace -- -D warnings -D clippy::unwrap_used -A
clippy::needless_collect -A clippy::result_large_err` to check that
you're using the standard code style
- `cargo test --workspace` to check that all tests pass
- `cargo run -- crates/nu-std/tests/run.nu` to run the tests for the
standard library
> **Note**
> from `nushell` you can also use the `toolkit` as follows
> ```bash
> use toolkit.nu # or use an `env_change` hook to activate it
automatically
> toolkit check pr
> ```
-->
# After Submitting
<!-- If your PR had any user-facing changes, update [the
documentation](https://github.com/nushell/nushell.github.io) after the
PR is merged, if necessary. This will help us keep the docs up to date.
-->
# Description
This is a pretty heavy refactor of the parser to support multiple parser
errors. It has a few issues we should address before landing:
- [x] In some cases, error quality has gotten worse `1 / "bob"` for
example
- [x] if/else isn't currently parsing correctly
- probably others
# User-Facing Changes
This may have error quality degradation as we adjust to the new error
reporting mechanism.
# Tests + Formatting
Don't forget to add tests that cover your changes.
Make sure you've run and fixed any issues with these commands:
- `cargo fmt --all -- --check` to check standard code formatting (`cargo
fmt --all` applies these changes)
- `cargo clippy --workspace -- -D warnings -D clippy::unwrap_used -A
clippy::needless_collect` to check that you're using the standard code
style
- `cargo test --workspace` to check that all tests pass
- `cargo run -- crates/nu-utils/standard_library/tests.nu` to run the
tests for the standard library
> **Note**
> from `nushell` you can also use the `toolkit` as follows
> ```bash
> use toolkit.nu # or use an `env_change` hook to activate it
automatically
> toolkit check pr
> ```
# After Submitting
If your PR had any user-facing changes, update [the
documentation](https://github.com/nushell/nushell.github.io) after the
PR is merged, if necessary. This will help us keep the docs up to date.
this pr refines #8270 and closes#8109
# description
examples:
the original syntax is okay
```nu
def okay [nums: list] {} # the type of list will be list<any>
```
empty annotations are allowed in any variation
the last two may be caught by a future formatter,
but do not affect `nu` code currently
```nu
def okay [nums: list<>] {} # okay
def okay [nums: list< >] {} # weird but also okay
def okay [nums: list<
>] {} # also weird but okay
```
types are allowed (See [notes](#notes) below)
```nu
def okay [nums: list<int>] {} # `test [a b c]` will throw an error
def okay [nums: list< int > {} # any amount of space within the angle brackets is okay
def err [nums: list <int>] {} # this is not okay, `nums` and `<int>` will be parsed as
# two separate params,
```
nested annotations are allowed in many variations
```nu
def okay [items: list<list<int>>] {}
def okay [items: list<list>] {}
```
any unterminated annotation is caught
```nu
Error: nu::parser::unexpected_eof
× Unexpected end of code.
╭─[source:1:1]
1 │ def err [nums: list<int] {}
· ▲
· ╰── expected closing >
╰────
```
unknown types are flagged
```nu
Error: nu::parser::unknown_type
× Unknown type.
╭─[source:1:1]
1 │ def err [nums: list<str>] {}
· ─┬─
· ╰── unknown type
╰────
Error: nu::parser::unknown_type
× Unknown type.
╭─[source:1:1]
1 │ def err [nums: list<int, string>] {}
· ─────┬─────
· ╰── unknown type
╰────
```
# notes
the error message for mismatched types in not as intuitive
```nu
Error: nu::parser::parse_mismatch
× Parse mismatch during operation.
╭─[source:1:1]
1 │ def err [nums: list<int>] {}; err [a b c]
· ┬
· ╰── expected int
╰────
```
it should be something like this
```nu
Error: nu::parser::parse_mismatch
× Parse mismatch during operation.
╭─[source:1:1]
1 │ def err [nums: list<int>] {}; err [a b c]
· ──┬──
· ╰── expected list<int>
╰────
```
this is currently not implemented
# Description
Previously `nix run nixpkgs#hello` was lexed as `Item, Item, Item,
Comment`, however, `#hello` is *not* supposed to be a comment here and
should be parsed as part of the third `Item`.
This change introduces this behavior by not interrupting the parse of
the current token upon seeing a `#`.
Thank you so much for considering this, I think many `nix` users will be
grateful for this change and I think this will lead to more adaptation
in the ecosystem.
- closes#8137 and #6335
# User-Facing Changes
- code like `somecode# bla` and `somecode#bla` will not be parsed as
`somecode, comment` but as `somecode#bla`, hence this is a breaking
change for all users who didn't put a space before a comment introducing
token (`#`)
# Tests + Formatting
I've added tests that cover this behavior in `test_lex.rs`
- [x] `cargo fmt --all -- --check` to check standard code formatting
(`cargo fmt --all` applies these changes)
- [x] `cargo clippy --workspace -- -D warnings -D clippy::unwrap_used -A
clippy::needless_collect` to check that you're using the standard code
style
- [x] `cargo test --workspace` to check that all tests pass
# After Submitting
> If your PR had any user-facing changes, update [the
documentation](https://github.com/nushell/nushell.github.io) after the
PR is merged, if necessary. This will help us keep the docs up to date.
I think this is expected behavior in most other shells, so the
documentation was lacking for not documenting the unexpected behavior
before and hence now is automatically more complete >D
Reverts nushell/nushell#7448
Some surprising behavior in how we do this. For example:
```
〉if (true || false) { print "yes!" } else { print "no!" }
no!
〉if (true or false) { print "yes!" } else { print "no!" }
yes!
```
This means for folks who are using the old `||`, they possibly get the
wrong answer once they upgrade. I don't think we can ship with that as
it will catch too many people by surprise and just make it easier to
write buggy code.
# Description
We got some feedback from folks used to other shells that `try/catch`
isn't quite as convenient as things like `||`. This PR adds `&&` as a
synonym for `;` and `||` as equivalent to what `try/catch` would do.
# User-Facing Changes
Adds `&&` and `||` pipeline operators.
# Tests + Formatting
Don't forget to add tests that cover your changes.
Make sure you've run and fixed any issues with these commands:
- `cargo fmt --all -- --check` to check standard code formatting (`cargo
fmt --all` applies these changes)
- `cargo clippy --workspace -- -D warnings -D clippy::unwrap_used -A
clippy::needless_collect` to check that you're using the standard code
style
- `cargo test --workspace` to check that all tests pass
# After Submitting
If your PR had any user-facing changes, update [the
documentation](https://github.com/nushell/nushell.github.io) after the
PR is merged, if necessary. This will help us keep the docs up to date.
# Description
Adds improved errors for when a user uses a bashism that nu doesn't
support.
fixes#7237
Examples:
```
Error: nu::parser::shell_andand (link)
× The '&&' operator is not supported in Nushell
╭─[entry #1:1:1]
1 │ ls && ls
· ─┬
· ╰── instead of '&&', use ';' or 'and'
╰────
help: use ';' instead of the shell '&&', or 'and' instead of the boolean '&&'
```
```
Error: nu::parser::shell_oror (link)
× The '||' operator is not supported in Nushell
╭─[entry #8:1:1]
1 │ ls || ls
· ─┬
· ╰── instead of '||', use 'try' or 'or'
╰────
help: use 'try' instead of the shell '||', or 'or' instead of the boolean '||'
```
```
Error: nu::parser::shell_err (link)
× The '2>' shell operation is 'err>' in Nushell.
╭─[entry #9:1:1]
1 │ foo 2> bar.txt
· ─┬
· ╰── use 'err>' instead of '2>' in Nushell
╰────
```
```
Error: nu::parser::shell_outerr (link)
× The '2>&1' shell operation is 'out+err>' in Nushell.
╭─[entry #10:1:1]
1 │ foo 2>&1 bar.txt
· ──┬─
· ╰── use 'out+err>' instead of '2>&1' in Nushell
╰────
help: Nushell redirection will write all of stdout before stderr.
```
# User-Facing Changes
**BREAKING CHANGES**
This removes the `&&` and `||` operators. We previously supported by
`&&`/`and` and `||`/`or`. With this change, only `and` and `or` are
valid boolean operators.
# Tests + Formatting
Don't forget to add tests that cover your changes.
Make sure you've run and fixed any issues with these commands:
- `cargo fmt --all -- --check` to check standard code formatting (`cargo
fmt --all` applies these changes)
- `cargo clippy --workspace -- -D warnings -D clippy::unwrap_used -A
clippy::needless_collect` to check that you're using the standard code
style
- `cargo test --workspace` to check that all tests pass
# After Submitting
If your PR had any user-facing changes, update [the
documentation](https://github.com/nushell/nushell.github.io) after the
PR is merged, if necessary. This will help us keep the docs up to date.
Also enforce this by #[non_exhaustive] span such that going forward we
cannot, in debug builds (1), construct invalid spans.
The motivation for this stems from #6431 where I've seen crashes due to
invalid slice indexing.
My hope is this will mitigate such senarios
1. https://github.com/nushell/nushell/pull/6431#issuecomment-1278147241
# Description
(description of your pull request here)
# Tests
Make sure you've done the following:
- [ ] Add tests that cover your changes, either in the command examples,
the crate/tests folder, or in the /tests folder.
- [ ] Try to think about corner cases and various ways how your changes
could break. Cover them with tests.
- [ ] If adding tests is not possible, please document in the PR body a
minimal example with steps on how to reproduce so one can verify your
change works.
Make sure you've run and fixed any issues with these commands:
- [x] `cargo fmt --all -- --check` to check standard code formatting
(`cargo fmt --all` applies these changes)
- [ ] `cargo clippy --workspace --features=extra -- -D warnings -D
clippy::unwrap_used -A clippy::needless_collect` to check that you're
using the standard code style
- [ ] `cargo test --workspace --features=extra` to check that all the
tests pass
# Documentation
- [ ] If your PR touches a user-facing nushell feature then make sure
that there is an entry in the documentation
(https://github.com/nushell/nushell.github.io) for the feature, and
update it if necessary.
This adds new pipeline connectors called out> and err> which redirect either stdout or stderr to a file. You can also use out+err> (or err+out>) to redirect both streams into a file.
