coderabbitai[bot]
commented
1 month ago Walkthrough
## Walkthrough The changes introduce a new negative prefix operator in the Shield project to handle negative expressions and integers. This enhancement involves updating various components, including the parser, evaluator, and abstract syntax tree (AST), to correctly parse, evaluate, and process negative numbers. Additionally, new test cases ensure the functionality works as intended. ## Changes | Files/Path(s) | Change Summary | |--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | `CHANGELOG.md` | Added a summary of the new negative prefix operator feature. | | `cmd/shield_repl/main.go` | Provided a REPL for the Shield language interpreter to read, evaluate, and print expressions. | | `proto/shield/ast/ast.proto` | Added a new `PrefixExpression` message type to handle prefix expressions. | | `shield/ast/ast.go` | Added functions `NewPrefixExpression` and `UnwrapPrefixExpression` for handling prefix expressions in the AST.| | `shield/ast/stringify.go` | Updated `Stringify` function to handle `PrefixExpression` and return formatted strings. | | `shield/internal/evaluator/evaluator.go` | Added `evalPrefixExpression` and `evalPrefixSubOperator` functions to evaluate prefix expressions. | | `shield/internal/evaluator/evaluator_test.go` | Added test cases for evaluating boolean and arithmetic expressions involving negative numbers. | | `shield/internal/metadata/metadata.go` | Updated `processNode` function to handle `PrefixExpression` by processing the right expression. | | `shield/internal/metadata/metadata_test.go`| Added test cases to `TestExtractMetadata` for handling negative numbers. | | `shield/internal/parser/parser.go` | Introduced parsing logic for prefix expressions and added a `PREFIX` constant and `parsePrefixExpression` method. | | `shield/internal/parser/parser_test.go` | Added `TestNegativeInteger` to test parsing of negative integers. | | `shield/internal/preprocess/preprocess.go` | Added `preprocessPrefixExpression` function to handle prefix expressions during preprocessing. | ## Sequence Diagram(s) (Beta) ```mermaid sequenceDiagram participant User participant REPL participant Parser participant Evaluator participant AST participant Metadata participant Preprocessor User->>REPL: Enter expression with negative number REPL->>Parser: Parse expression Parser->>AST: Create PrefixExpression node Parser->>Preprocessor: Preprocess PrefixExpression Preprocessor->>AST: Process right side of PrefixExpression AST->>Evaluator: Evaluate PrefixExpression Evaluator->>AST: Evaluate right side of PrefixExpression Evaluator->>Metadata: Update metadata Metadata->>Evaluator: Return updated metadata Evaluator->>REPL: Return evaluated result REPL->>User: Display result ``` ## Assessment against linked issues | Objective | Addressed | Explanation | |-------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Correctly parse negative numbers (#328) | ✅ | | | Fix lexer to include `-` sign in integer tokens | ✅ | | | Add unit tests for negative integer parsing | ✅ | |Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?
AzraelSec
Hello, Warden Team 👋🏻
I'd like to contribute to this project by opening a PR to make the shield DSL handle negative integers. I didn't comment on the related issue before picking it up since I briefly chatted with @Pitasi about this. Please forgive me if this was not the expected workflow to follow.
The current PR defines the abstraction to handle the negative sign as a prefix expression (with the highest priority between the operators) instead of changing the lexer to manually recognize negative integers. This way, you can write more complex expressions (e.g.
--1,-(-1),-var[when/if constants/variables will be available]) without additional costs.Also, I used a small REPL tool to manually test the feature (as an additional step to write unit tests), and I decided to include it as part of the current PR. I'm happy to drop it if you don't think this might be useful.
I'm happy to discuss the proposed changes. Let me know if anything does not match what you expect. Thanks!
Closes #328
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Tests
Documentation
Refactor