New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix weblinks #4288
Merged
Merged
Fix weblinks #4288
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
16 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d19361a
initial rewrite of addon mechs
jerch 39c2e57
hack around DOM renderer issue, fix api tests
jerch de23616
better line expansion
jerch 3bf72cd
DOM renderer fix with much better performance
jerch 46bd972
disabled faulty code in linkifier2
jerch 42bacc3
disabled faulty code in linkifier2
jerch fd44d76
api tests for uri and ranges
jerch 03dc190
Merge branch 'master' into fix_weblinks
jerch becec91
better regexp, fix offset issue in #4294
jerch e70138b
revert temp changes in linkifier2
jerch f69f9de
allow ~ within urls
jerch e66fd50
cleanup & more comments
jerch d65898f
Merge branch 'master' into fix_weblinks
jerch 9411acb
move link tests to demo
jerch 1757f27
explicit type for link test data
jerch 218cfd2
Merge branch 'master' into fix_weblinks
jerch File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm guessing people will complain about regressions here, interesting learning about rfc1738 though. Should we be more explicit about the intended scope of the addon in the readme? I've always viewed it as a decent basic URL detector, but it's not meant to be feature complete and handle a bunch of edge cases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes thats the downside of turning the matcher logic upside-down, but I did not find another way while allowing these unicode uris to match. Will see if I get less "overmatching" from the vscode-uri package.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure how to go about the risk of overmatching. I think the new matcher is way more capable than the old one, so I'd suggest to go with new one and lets see, if ppl stumble into tons of issues?
And if thats a big issue for peeps, the old addon version would still be around and work as before, so we can fix things iteratively?