You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Exercise enclosure-like values without skipped tests #579
Ten enclosure middleware cases are currently skipped when a value itself starts and ends with braces or quotes. Those cases are ambiguous only if the test tries to infer whether a wrapper was added from the final string; the middleware's expected behavior can still be asserted directly.
The skips leave gaps in both directions:
removal should record and strip enclosure-like boundary characters consistently, even when the test did not add an outer wrapper; and
addition with no-enclosing should leave an enclosure-like value exactly unchanged rather than being skipped because it resembles wrapped output.
Proposed coverage
Replace the skip helper with explicit expected-value and metadata assertions for removal, and compare exact output for no-enclosing addition. This turns the complete enclosure matrix into executable regression coverage without changing production behavior.
Hi @claell — I'm posting this same note on all of your July 16 issues and PRs (#567–#597), so apologies for the form-letter feel.
I'm closing this. The batch — 13 issues, 18 PRs, ~3,000 lines, opened within a two-hour window with spec-style language and forward-references to PR numbers that didn't exist yet — reads as AI-generated rather than something you hit and verified by hand. Reviewing it properly would cost me more time than just fixing the parser myself.
If this is a real bug you've actually hit: reopen it with a concrete repro and a small, human-verified fix, and I'll review it. Any nontrivial design or API choice should be discussed in the issue first, before code is written. Otherwise, please disclose and verify AI-assisted contributions before submitting them in future.
Activity
claell commentedon Jul 16, 2026
A focused test-only implementation is available in draft PR #580: #580
MiWeiss commentedon Sep 2, 2026
Hi @claell — I'm posting this same note on all of your July 16 issues and PRs (#567–#597), so apologies for the form-letter feel.
I'm closing this. The batch — 13 issues, 18 PRs, ~3,000 lines, opened within a two-hour window with spec-style language and forward-references to PR numbers that didn't exist yet — reads as AI-generated rather than something you hit and verified by hand. Reviewing it properly would cost me more time than just fixing the parser myself.
If this is a real bug you've actually hit: reopen it with a concrete repro and a small, human-verified fix, and I'll review it. Any nontrivial design or API choice should be discussed in the issue first, before code is written. Otherwise, please disclose and verify AI-assisted contributions before submitting them in future.