Skip to content
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

Include expression type into expression comparison #1236

Open
jklmnn opened this issue Oct 25, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

Include expression type into expression comparison #1236

jklmnn opened this issue Oct 25, 2022 · 0 comments
Labels
bug model Related to model package (e.g., model verification) refactoring small Effort of one person-day or less

Comments

@jklmnn
Copy link
Member

jklmnn commented Oct 25, 2022

Currently expressions are compared by str(self) == str(other). While this resulted from an efficiency improvement before the introduction of type checking it may now lead to passing tests even when errors in the type setting or checking are present.

This ticket is small as adding the expression type to the comparison makes very few tests fail, most of them due to types that are not set when comparing a structure from a message with a custom structure without a message.

@jklmnn jklmnn added bug model Related to model package (e.g., model verification) small Effort of one person-day or less refactoring labels Oct 25, 2022
@jklmnn jklmnn added this to Medium in RecordFlux Future via automation Oct 25, 2022
@senier senier removed this from Medium in RecordFlux Future Nov 29, 2022
@senier senier added this to To do in RecordFlux 2023-01-06 via automation Nov 29, 2022
@senier senier removed this from To do in RecordFlux 2023-01-06 Jan 3, 2023
@senier senier added this to To do in RecordFlux 2023-02-24 via automation Jan 3, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug model Related to model package (e.g., model verification) refactoring small Effort of one person-day or less
Projects
No open projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant