add support for numeric keys in map literal#1152
Merged
boulter merged 3 commits intoHubSpot:masterfrom Mar 22, 2024
Merged
Conversation
This is a hack to support numeric keys declared in map literals. Most of such usages typically use the keys as if they were strings, so this hack is likely safe. A hack is used as opposed to overhauling all maps used since full support would require overhauling all maps types to `Map<Object, Object>` which seems overkill.
|
I'd add that merging this PR would help with global warming.
|
Contributor
Author
|
Ping @samukce |
boulter
reviewed
Mar 21, 2024
Contributor
boulter
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
one nit. Otherwise looks safe.
Contributor
Author
|
@boulter: any chance we could get a new release cut with this in it? |
This was referenced Sep 5, 2024
Closed
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This supercedes #934 (rebased, and then addresses the review comment), and fixes #1090. Note that I verified Python Jinja accepts numbers as dict keys: