fix: initialize next_box_height to avoid unboundlocalerrors #2107
Conversation
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
| @@ -176,6 +176,9 @@ def columns_layout(context, box, bottom_space, skip_stack, containing_block, | |||
| new_boxes.append(new_box) | |||
| column_skip_stack = resume_at | |||
|
|
|||
| # Avoid edge cases resulting in a UnboundLocalError in line 223 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wouldn't add a comment here. To me it is obvious that there are multiple conditions where next_box_height is not set.
|
I basically know next to nothing about the WeasyPrint code but the change looks good to me. |
It looks good to me too, but I’d like to have a way to reproduce the problem before merging, so that we can add a test. See #2106. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
As promised in #2106, this is my proposed fix for
UnboundLocalErrors inside of thelayout/column.pymodule.I am still not sure yet if initializing the value with
0is the right move here, however, in our case, monkey-patching it this way seemed to work without any further problems.Let me know if this is fine.