-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 421
Added AllowFieldCountMismatch property to CsvConfiguration #985
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Draft
michelebastione
wants to merge
2
commits into
mini-software:master
Choose a base branch
from
michelebastione:csv-jagged-rows
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Mismatch check only guards short rows — long rows crash (header mode) or silently bypass the flag (headerless mode).
The invalid-row check (
fields.Length < headerRow.Count) only fires when a row has fewer fields than the header. When a row has more fields than the header andAllowFieldCountMismatchisfalse(the default):hasHeaderRowmode,headerRow.Add(...)is skipped (line 96-97 guarded by the config flag), but the loop still doesresultRow[headerRow[i]]fori >= headerRow.Count— this throws an unhandledKeyNotFoundExceptioninstead of the documentedColumnNotFoundException.CellReferenceConverter.GetAlphabeticalIndex(i), not aheaderRowlookup), but it also silently accepts the extra fields — soAllowFieldCountMismatch = falsedoesn't enforce anything for over-long rows there either.Neither branch is covered by the new jagged-row tests (which only exercise
AllowFieldCountMismatch = true), so this regresses on any ordinary CSV row that happens to have one extra field when the flag is left at its default.🐛 Proposed fix: make the mismatch check symmetric
Fixing this single check resolves both branches, since neither the header-mode assignment loop nor the headerless loop is reached once mismatched rows are rejected up front when the flag is off.
📝 Committable suggestion
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was aware of this when writing the PR, it was however an edge case already present before, so fixing it now would be a non trivial breaking change. I'm evaluating the best path forwards.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@michelebastione, understood. Since the default-path behavior predates this PR and changing it could alter compatibility, I agree it should not block the opt-inAllowFieldCountMismatchwork here.Please keep the current scope focused on the enabled path. If you decide to defer the stricter default behavior, would you like me to open a follow-up GitHub issue to track the API/compatibility decision and regression coverage?