Ensure empty sections are parsed but empty #50
Merged
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hello! We recently started using this library and noticed that empty sections don't show up via the
.sections()method. This fixes that by inserting an empty HashMap when the section name is parsed, rather than waiting for the first value to be added.I didn't add an option for it, but it seems like if you consider this a breaking change, it would be fairly easy to put behind an additional config value in the IniDefault type.
Fixes #37
I can also open issues for them, but what would your thoughts be on "has_section" and "create_section" methods? I notice neither of those prefixes is used, so another name might work better, I just wasn't sure what. "insert_section" would be an option, but that's sort of implied to take a
Map, which wasn't what I was going for... though I suppose it would work.