Shows surrounding kw/end pairs
The purpose of showing these extra pairs is due to cases of ambiguity when only one visible line is matched.
For example:
1 class Dog 2 def bark 4 def eat 5 end 6 end
In this case either line 2 could be missing an ‘end` or line 4 was an extra line added by mistake (it happens).
When we detect the above problem it shows the issue as only being on line 2
2 def bark
Showing “neighbor” keyword pairs gives extra context:
2 def bark 4 def eat 5 end
Add the –clear-sources option
Add the –update-sources option
@return [Set<Vertex>] the vertices of {#graph} where ‘self` is a
{#descendent?}
@param [Set<Vertex>] vertices the set to add the predecessors to @return [Set<Vertex>] the vertices of {#graph} where ‘self` is a
{#descendent?}
@return [Set<Vertex>] the vertices of {#graph} where ‘self` is an
{#ancestor?}
@param [Set<Vertex>] vertices the set to add the successors to @return [Set<Vertex>] the vertices of {#graph} where ‘self` is an
{#ancestor?}
Returns the octet string representation of the elliptic curve point.
conversion_form specifies how the point is converted. Possible values are:
:compressed
:uncompressed
:hybrid
Get the issuing certificate’s key identifier from the authorityKeyIdentifier extension, as described in RFC5280 Section 4.2.1.1
Returns the binary String keyIdentifier or nil or raises ASN1::ASN1Error.
Interpolate substition vars in the arg (i.e. $(DEFFILE))
Reset nil attributes to their default values to make the spec valid
When there is an invalid block with a keyword missing an end right before another end, it is unclear where which keyword is missing the end
Take this example:
class Dog # 1
def bark # 2
puts "woof" # 3
end # 4
However due to github.com/ruby/syntax_suggest/issues/32 the problem line will be identified as:
> class Dog # 1
Because lines 2, 3, and 4 are technically valid code and are expanded first, deemed valid, and hidden. We need to un-hide the matching end line 4. Also work backwards and if there’s a mis-matched keyword, show it too
This method verifies that there are no (obvious) ambiguities with the provided col_sep and strip parsing options. For example, if col_sep and strip were both equal to \t, then there would be no clear way to parse the input.
The logical inverse of ‘capture_last_end_same_indent`
When there is an invalid block with an ‘end` missing a keyword right after another `end`, it is unclear where which end is missing the keyword.
Take this example:
class Dog # 1
puts "woof" # 2
end # 3
end # 4
the problem line will be identified as:
> end # 4
This happens because lines 1, 2, and 3 are technically valid code and are expanded first, deemed valid, and hidden. We need to un-hide the matching keyword on line 1. Also work backwards and if there’s a mis-matched end, show it too
@return [String] the name of the source of explicit dependencies, i.e.
those passed to {Resolver#resolve} directly.
@return [String] the name of the source of ‘locked’ dependencies, i.e.
those passed to {Resolver#resolve} directly as the `base`
@return [Boolean] where the requirement of the state we’re unwinding
to directly caused the conflict. Note: in this case, it is impossible for the state we're unwinding to to be a parent of any of the other conflicting requirements (or we would have circularity)
Filter’s a state’s possibilities to remove any that would not satisfy the requirements in the conflict we’ve just rewound from @param [UnwindDetails] unwind_details details of the conflict just unwound from @return [void]