Fix that escaped interpolations with reserved keywords raised ReservedInterpolationKey #688
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Bilka2
commented
Mar 12, 2024
1 task
|
Hey, is there anything still to missing from my side to get this merged? |
|
Nothing from your side -- I've just been sick (flu hit me hard) and/or busy in the last little while! Back on deck now though. |
|
Thank you for merging this and the release! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I found this issue when looking into fixing glebm/i18n-tasks#552. The reserved keywords in the interpolations were noticed due to #678. The proposed solution is to escape the interpolation with
%%based on https://github.com/ruby-i18n/i18n/blob/master/lib/i18n/interpolate/ruby.rb.However, the check for reserved keywords didn't care that the interpolation was escaped. I adjusted the regex for the reserved keywords with the same negative lookbehind assertion as proposed in the i18n-tasks issue.