-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35
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
Infer a speculation rule's source from the other keys #295
Conversation
Preview: |
What do you think? First commit is my first instinct (if present validate it as now, just allow it to be absent). Second was your slight preference (ignore it entirely). Honestly I think I have a slight preference for the former abstractly but don't feel super strongly (and admit it's nice not to have to test both). This is pretty trivial and I'd hope we can use a lightweight process if this makes sense to you. |
One case that ignoring it would break (that our unit tests caught) -- a catch-all could previously be written |
This reverts commit 5372f52.
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 convinced, let's infer it!
Maybe also consider explainer updates in this PR?
…where it works and the context is otherwise current
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.
Love it!!
Fixes #169.