Skip to content

Conversation

sisidovski
Copy link
Collaborator

@sisidovski sisidovski commented Mar 12, 2025

This will address #260.


Preview | Diff

Copy link
Contributor

@anonrig anonrig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@annevk
Copy link
Member

annevk commented Mar 12, 2025

This does mean that the "issue" can still be reproduced with "8\t0" as input, right? I wonder if we should perhaps do the opposite here and not trim and just change the test expectation.

@sisidovski
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Yeah that's a fair point. We can solve "80 " easily but yes this only solves leading/trailing cases. Initially I thought this is better than nothing, but only fixing this case will introduce further confusions, changing the test expectation makes sense.

@sisidovski
Copy link
Collaborator Author

OK, I'll work on fixing test expectation side. Let me close this PR.

@sisidovski sisidovski closed this Mar 13, 2025
@sisidovski sisidovski deleted the fix-port-canonicalization branch March 13, 2025 06:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants