Improve UNB Interchange Header recognition for syntax identifier #142
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
|
Could you please also a wrapped test? |
|
You mean like this right? |
|
Yes, I merge it |
|
Thanks ❤️ |
|
@sabas Could you please create a tag for it as well? |
|
Yes, I was doing some additional work on the testing side, I will push today |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hi 🙂,
After merging my previous PR I noticed that if the UNA header is present, the UNB recognition doesn't work.
The UNB header recognition and consequently the syntax identifier is not recognized.
My proposal would be to improve the UNB field recognition.
Let me know if you have any further questions or if I need to make some changes.