Quoting Johannes Sixt (2019-10-12 05:54:00)
> Am 08.10.19 um 16:43 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> > Quoting Johannes Sixt (2019-10-05 07:09:11)
> >> Am 04.10.19 um 23:30 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/t/t4018/dts-nodes-multiline-prop
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> >>> +/ {
> >>> + label_1: node1@ff00 {
> >>> + RIGHT@deadf00,4000 {
> >>> + multilineprop = <3>,
> >>> + <4>;
> >>
> >> You could insert more lines to demonstrate that "<x>," on a line by
> >> itself is not picked up.
> >
> > Maybe I should add another test?
>
> This is is the _multi_line test case, right? ;) Just add one or two
> lines between the <3> and the <4> that look like common real-world cases
> to show that those lines won't be picked up. I don't think that another
> test file is required.
Ok got it!
>
> >>> +/ { RIGHT /* Technically just supposed to be a slash and brace */
> >>
> >> Devil's advocate here: insert ';' or '=' in the comment, and the line
> >> would not be picked up. Does that hurt in practice?
> >
> > I don't think it hurts in practice so I'd like to ignore it.
>
> Sure, no problem.
>
> >>> PATTERNS("dts",
> >>> "!;\n"
> >>> + "!.*=.*\n"
> >>
> >> This behaves the same way as just
> >>
> >> "!=\n"
> >>
> >> no?
> >>
> >
> > Not exactly. Properties don't always get assigned.
>
> I was just refering to the added line, not the combination of the two lines.
Ah ok. I'll reduce the line as you suggest then. Thanks.
>
> But while you are speaking of it:
>
> > There are boolean
> > properties that can be tested for by the presence of some string with an
> > ending semi-colon, like 'this-is-true;'. If we just check for not equal
> > to a line with a semicolon and newline then we'll see boolean
> > properties. Should I add that as another test?
>
> I agree that a test case with a Boolean property would be great.
>
Alright I'll work on that and resend.
