Closed DavyLandman closed 8 months ago
Thanks.
Well, I updated the pico example to use the new constructor. And the test fail, but that's just UI test jank, since only the first DSL test fails.
In general there is not difference between how a language with 1 extension or more is handled now.
Right. So if the tests work, then we are sure of that. But we should add a test for a language with two extensions right? Otherwise, this feature will break the next time someone does something "quickly". Like me :-)
Otherwise, this feature will break the next time someone does something "quickly". Like me :-)
that seems wise, I added a test for it.
Kudos, no new issues were introduced!
0 New issues
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code
As discussed in #343 we want to better align with LSP & VS Code by allowing multiple extensions for a single language.
The biggest change was in our multiplexer, which used to work by extension alone, but now maps extensions to language, and then continues as before.
I've tested that the old DSLs still work without requiring changes.