fix: ensure namespaced attributes are reparented properly #2230
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
also use xmlNodePtr->properties in place of xmlElementPtr->attributes because it's clearer and requires less type gymnastics
The function `reparent_node_with` is already doing the right thing.
Previously, the namespace was dropped from the attribute. Fixes #2228 Co-authored-by: Nikolaj Potashnikoff <34554890+fiddlededee@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit cd6941f and detected 0 issues on this pull request. The test coverage on the diff in this pull request is 100.0% (80% is the threshold). This pull request will bring the total coverage in the repository to 93.2% (0.0% change). View more on Code Climate. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What problem is this PR intended to solve?
Fixes #2228.
Also:
Have you included adequate test coverage?
Yes, test coverage adapted from #2228.
Does this change affect the behavior of either the C or the Java implementations?
The Java implementation was already doing the right thing, this change only impacts CRuby behavior.