Conversation
|
This turned out to be bigger than I thought. Specifically, the new Highlighter release both makes things a lot nicer for us, but also removes some level of control. Is it acceptable that we lose the ability for users to explicitly target system vs 256 vs 24 bit color? It looks like Highlights.jl just handles this automatically now. |
|
The failing test here also fails on master. |
|
That test failure should be fixed in #392. |
|
Thanks for the fixes! |
| JuliaInterpreter = "aa1ae85d-cabe-5617-a682-6adf51b2e16a" | ||
| Markdown = "d6f4376e-aef5-505a-96c1-9c027394607a" | ||
| REPL = "3fa0cd96-eef1-5676-8a61-b3b8758bbffb" | ||
| tree_sitter_julia_jll = "52be201e-a5e9-5cfe-8bf2-2dc4b062171c" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the new highlighter version requires users depend on treesitter jlls for the languages that they highlight
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we can load the package and use the
using tree_sitter_julia_jll
highlight(code, tree_sitter_julia_jll, "Dracula")
format? It just feels strange to depend on a package and then not load it..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm fine with that. I agree that it's a little weird to depend but not load.
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #390 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 51.03% 49.70% -1.34%
==========================================
Files 9 9
Lines 821 835 +14
==========================================
- Hits 419 415 -4
- Misses 402 420 +18 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
4 participants
No description provided.