-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 274
chore: migrate plugins to tsquery #1009
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
Conversation
commit: |
Thanks, @beaussan! This is super useful to compare bare TS and tsquery side by side. To be honest, personally I don't find the new queries more readable over bare TS. I think I'd rather write it out and have a bit more flexibility. On the other hand, there's also something to say for not having to call Happy to have others chime in as well, as I'm a bit on the fence here. It's another thing to learn for folks, or perhaps it's actually preferred over bare TS, idk :) |
That's the goal!
Totally understandable, at work we have to do a lot of ast based analysis of code files, we started with the same visitor pattern but we end up refactoring to the tsquery pattern a year back and it helped a lot with the maintainability, but it's a tradeoff that only you + team only can consider! Feel free to close the pr if it's not relevant ✂️ |
ce5a619
to
079263b
Compare
Thanks again Nicolas. I'm going to close this one in favor of implementing |
Migrate:
to tsquery to do ast lookup. I didn't to sst given I don't know enough the source file expected shape
This website also help you live debug your tsquery queries: https://tsquery-playground.firebaseapp.com/