search

nhmood / watson-ruby

inline issue manager
MIT License
634 stars 50 forks source link

Add support for `TAG: x` tag syntax #235

Closed nicinabox closed 10 years ago

nicinabox commented 10 years ago

Hi there!

I've been trying to work watson into my daily workflow, but the major hangup was the tag syntax. All of our comments are in the TAG: x syntax, rather than watson's [tag] - x. This PR adds support for both and clarifies the comment regex. I hope you consider it!

Thanks!

mtford90 commented 10 years ago

Might be worth making the comment syntax configurable via a regex or something like that instead?

nicinabox commented 10 years ago

Yeah, that would be awesome. I would worry about the user getting the regex right though. I had to do quite a bit of testing to make sure this one worked out. The chance of someone using a custom regex and getting it wrong is quite high.

nhmood commented 10 years ago

I was actually thinking of implementing a generic version of tag support like @mtford90 suggested. My thought was to have two potential inputs for the user, a simplified and a full regex method.

The full regex would accept an actual regex and would assume the user knows what they are doing / tests their regex properly. It would use the users regex verbatim for the _comment_regex (https://github.com/nhmood/watson-ruby/blob/master/lib/watson/parser.rb#L211)

The simplified version would require a predefined format:

[tag_syntax]
>>TAG<< +++ COMMENT

Then, it would create a regex based off the TAG and COMMENT locations in the string (essentially replace TAG and COMMENT with \w+ or something of the likes) and use the generated regex for _comment_regex. I haven't tried implementing this yet so I don't know how hard / if it is possible, but it doesn't seem too far fetched. You would then specify which form (simplified vs. full) in the config file by prepending something to the string (r for full regex perhaps)

I will give this a go, if I can't get anywhere or find that it will take too long I'll accept this PR :)

nicinabox commented 10 years ago

Predefined format is what I thought would be easiest as well. I don't think it's too far-fetched: replace the keywords with regex and off you go, like you said.

Maybe I should just send a PR for that instead?

nhmood commented 10 years ago

Yeah if you want to implement and submit a PR that would be great! I only thought of a potential solution, no implementation yet, plus it would be an extension to the work you did for this PR.

nicinabox commented 10 years ago

See #237 for configurable implementation :)

nhmood commented 10 years ago

Closed with #237, thanks :)