Skip to content

Conversation

@khasinski
Copy link
Contributor

@khasinski khasinski commented Jan 7, 2026

When defining a method with a required keyword argument without parentheses, mruby incorrectly parsed the next line as the default value:

def foo arg:
  123
end

Was parsed as: def foo(arg: 123); end (optional kwarg, empty body)
Should be: def foo(arg:); 123; end (required kwarg, body returns 123)

The fix sets EXPR_ARG lexer state after parsing f_label, making newlines significant. This prevents the parser from consuming expressions across line boundaries as default values for keyword arguments.

Fixes #6268

@khasinski khasinski requested a review from matz as a code owner January 7, 2026 23:25
@gemini-code-assist
Copy link

Summary of Changes

Hello @khasinski, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves a critical parsing error in mruby's compiler. Previously, when a method was defined with a required keyword argument but without explicit parentheses, the parser would mistakenly interpret the following line of code as a default value for that argument. The implemented fix modifies the lexer state after processing a keyword argument label, making newlines significant and thereby correctly distinguishing between argument definitions and the method's body. This ensures that method definitions are parsed as intended, aligning with Ruby's expected behavior.

Highlights

  • Parsing Error Correction: Fixed a bug where mruby incorrectly parsed required keyword arguments without parentheses, treating the subsequent line as a default value.
  • Lexer State Adjustment: Introduced p->lstate = EXPR_ARG after f_label parsing to make newlines significant, ensuring correct argument definition and method body separation.
  • Prevented Misinterpretation: The change prevents the parser from consuming expressions across line boundaries as default values for keyword arguments.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request fixes a parsing error with required keyword arguments when parentheses are omitted. The change correctly sets the lexer state to EXPR_ARG after parsing a keyword argument label, which makes newlines significant and prevents the parser from consuming the next line as a default value.

The fix seems correct and addresses the issue described. I've added one comment with a suggestion to fix a potential bug in the handling of numbered parameters within the same rule, and to improve code clarity. This also touches upon minor code duplication that could be refactored.

When defining a method with a required keyword argument without
parentheses, mruby incorrectly parsed the next line as the default
value:

    def foo arg:
      123
    end

Was parsed as: def foo(arg: 123); end  (optional kwarg, empty body)
Should be:     def foo(arg:); 123; end (required kwarg, body returns 123)

The fix sets EXPR_ARG lexer state after parsing f_label, making
newlines significant. This prevents the parser from consuming
expressions across line boundaries as default values for keyword
arguments.

Also fixes a pre-existing bug in f_label where tNUMPARAM (type <num>)
was implicitly assigned to $$ (type <id>) without conversion. Now
explicitly uses intern_numparam() to convert numbered parameters to
symbols.

Fixes mruby#6268
@khasinski khasinski force-pushed the fix-required-kwarg-parsing branch from 4f60d4a to 1e932dd Compare January 7, 2026 23:51
@matz matz merged commit 9a48049 into mruby:master Jan 8, 2026
17 checks passed
@khasinski khasinski deleted the fix-required-kwarg-parsing branch January 8, 2026 20:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Parse error with required kwargs and omitted parens

2 participants