fix(parser): Unable to parse json in one line

[iamxiaojianzheng]

about this #41

[oysandvik94]

This function returns a boolean whether the line contains a json closer, however the result is never used.
Is the case fixed if you do the same as in the else branch instead?

			local found_json_end =
				is_line_json_close(json_nesting_stack, opening_json_char, closing_json_char, cleaned_line)
			if found_json_end then
				cleaned_line = cleaned_line .. "'"
			end

If so, I think this method would be cleaner if the for loop looked like this:

	for _, line in ipairs(lines) do
		local cleaned_line = remove_trailing_forwardslash(line)

		if found_first_json_char(json_nesting_stack, cleaned_line) then
			opening_json_char = cleaned_line:sub(1, 1)
			closing_json_char = opening_json_char == "[" and "]" or "}"
		end
		local found_json_end =
			is_line_json_close(json_nesting_stack, opening_json_char, closing_json_char, cleaned_line)
		if found_json_end then
			cleaned_line = cleaned_line .. "'"
		end

		table.insert(cleaned_lines, cleaned_line)
	end

[oysandvik94]

See the comment.

Also, I think we should have a test for the case that fails.
It can be added to "parser_spec.lua", there are other examples in that file.

[iamxiaojianzheng]

After reading the code, I found that although this method did not use its return value, it operated on json_nesting_stack, which was critical.

[iamxiaojianzheng]

See the comment.

Also, I think we should have a test for the case that fails.

It can be added to "parser_spec.lua", there are other examples in that file.

OK, I'll add the test case later.

[oysandvik94]

After reading the code, I found that although this method did not use its return value, it operated on json_nesting_stack, which was critical.

That's right, might not be the best design from my part hehe.

But this check:
#json_nesting_stack == 0
Is done inside "is_line_json_close()", and the return value of that evaluation, so I think you can assert the result of that function instead of asserting the size of the stack afterwards. I think that will end up in more readable code.

[iamxiaojianzheng]

I have finished the revision.

[oysandvik94]

Dont need this comment, this if check will work for all cases

[iamxiaojianzheng]

That makes sense. It's been taken care of.

[oysandvik94]

Looks very good! I just had a little nitpick

[oysandvik94]

Thank you so much for your contribution 😸

[iamxiaojianzheng]

Thank you so much for your contribution 😸

Look forward to your refactoring. 😀