Skip to content

Conversation

QMalcolm
Copy link
Contributor

@QMalcolm QMalcolm commented Oct 6, 2025

Resolves #12072

Problem

Functions previously broke if they were included during partial parsing 🫠

Solution

Plumb functions through partial parsing! 🚀

Checklist

  • I have read the contributing guide and understand what's expected of me.
  • I have run this code in development, and it appears to resolve the stated issue.
  • This PR includes tests, or tests are not required or relevant for this PR.
  • This PR has no interface changes (e.g., macros, CLI, logs, JSON artifacts, config files, adapter interface, etc.) or this PR has already received feedback and approval from Product or DX.
  • This PR includes type annotations for new and modified functions.

@QMalcolm QMalcolm requested a review from a team as a code owner October 6, 2025 19:07
@cla-bot cla-bot bot added the cla:yes label Oct 6, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 6, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 36.11111% with 23 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.89%. Comparing base (db9a6e1) to head (458bdaf).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #12074      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.95%   89.89%   -2.07%     
==========================================
  Files         203      203              
  Lines       24833    24866      +33     
==========================================
- Hits        22836    22354     -482     
- Misses       1997     2512     +515     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 86.22% <36.11%> (-2.72%) ⬇️
unit 65.10% <19.44%> (-0.07%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components Coverage Δ
Unit Tests 65.10% <19.44%> (-0.07%) ⬇️
Integration Tests 86.22% <36.11%> (-2.72%) ⬇️
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Contributor

@gshank gshank left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, just one question.

source_file.nodes.remove(function_unique_id)

# schedule function for parsing.
# Note: We _don't_ need to schedule referencing nodes for reparsing, because a change in a function changes nothing
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If the number of parameters has changed, is that something that's detected at parse time? Or only compilation time? If it's detected at parse time, then we should schedule referencing nodes in order to get that error. If it's not detected at parse time, this is fine.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[UDFs] Partial parsing support for functions

2 participants