-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 331
Allow Removing Certain GFM Alert Types #435
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
Merged
robinst
merged 8 commits into
commonmark:main
from
rdestefa:issue-431-disallow-github-alert-types
Jun 7, 2026
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
4256dc7
Allow Removing Standard GFM Alert Types
rdestefa d665735
Change removeTypes to setAllowedTypes
rdestefa 9c813f6
Remove addCustomType
rdestefa 55004c8
Revert "Remove addCustomType"
rdestefa 8cb6a98
Use var instead of explicit types in AlertsMarkdownRendererTest
rdestefa 50d75cb
Fix bug where addCustomType would fail if setAllowedTypes was called …
rdestefa 248931b
Share type and title validation logic
rdestefa fa45a94
Add Tests for Validation
rdestefa 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
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.
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.
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'm wondering if it would be nicer if the API was just
setAllowedTypes(Map<String, String>)instead, which would allow you to set the exact types you want (including custom ones). It would just override the whole map. With the current API in some cases you'd have to do remove+add. What do you think?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.
Thanks for the suggestion! Agree that
setAllowedTypes(Map<String, String>)would be better thanremoveTypes(String...). I thinkaddCustomTypewould still be good to keep so users who just want to add 1 or 2 more types don't need to completely recreate the set, but I made two commits so you can see which you think works best:removeTypeswithsetAllowedTypes, but keepsaddCustomTypeaddCustomTypeThere 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.
Ah yeah I think
addCustomTypecan stay.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.
Done!