ICU-22747 MF2: Validate digit size for :number and :integer; validate options for :datetime #2973
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
It is not an error to write a message like that, from the point of view that this is a "valid" message. I carefully searched the formatting and registry sections and double-checked errors. It is not currently required to be an error (as an alternative, an implementation might ignore the option, although I'm dubious that this is a Good Idea). The registry part of the spec says what the value space for digit options is, but not what to do if the value provided doesn't match it. (It also fails to clearly state that what to do is implementation defined). It is permitted that implementations emit errors during function resolution (in which case, this will be an Invalid Expression error). When this is addressed (and I think it should be) I think it should be addressed in default registry, not the core spec. |
aphillips
added a commit
to unicode-org/message-format-wg
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 19, 2024
I found these errors while [commenting](unicode-org/icu#2973 (comment)) on an issue in ICU. Fixing the text for consistency.
|
In general the philosophy in how errors are handled in JS / Python and other other can be quite different from something like ICU. If I do throw in ICU (C++ or Java) on something like a watch, it means a firmware update that has to be explicitly pushed to millions of devices. If the spec explicitly REQUIRES such mistakes to trigger errors, then I would strongly push to change the spec. |
|
@aphillips @mihnita When I say "the spec requires it", I mean in the sense that the tests are part of the spec. I think I raised the question before of whether the test should be required to be an error, and Eemeli's comment here said yes, which is what I'm going off. But I'm happy to close the PR (for now) if there needs to be more discussion on the spec side. |
|
@catamorphism Thanks for this. @eemeli's comment and what the tests do might be the "right thing to do", but, as noted, they are not what the spec says. We need to be very careful about creating conformance tests. They need to match what the spec actually requires. I think it is valid for an implementation (ICU4C is one) to emit an error for this and render the fallback expression. But these are not syntax or data model errors. |
aphillips
added a commit
to unicode-org/message-format-wg
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2024
I found these errors while [commenting](unicode-org/icu#2973 (comment)) on an issue in ICU. Fixing the text for consistency.
|
I'm converting this PR to draft since it's an ongoing topic of discussion in the spec working group. |
ZL91
approved these changes
May 11, 2024
ZL91
approved these changes
May 11, 2024
catamorphism
force-pushed
the
validate-options
branch
from
1e0e151
to
4567804
Compare
|
Notice: the branch changed across the force-push!
~ Your Friendly Jira-GitHub PR Checker Bot |
catamorphism
changed the title
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.
In MF2, functions can be passed named option values. The spec defines two cases where built-in functions should error out when provided an unexpected value for one of its options:
For the built-in
:numberand:integerfunctions: "If the value of a digit size option does not evaluate as a non-negative integer, or if the value exceeds any implementation-defined upper limit or any option-specific lower limit, a Bad Option Error is emitted." 1For the built-in
:datetimefunction: "The :datetime function can use either the appropriate style options or can use a collection of field options (but not both) to control the formatted output.If both are specified, a Bad Option error MUST be emitted and a fallback value used as the resolved value of the expression." 2
This PR implements both of these checks for ICU4C.
Checklist