[16:12:44] <lbertolotti>	 Hi
[18:02:39] <raynor>	 nzr: daily :)
[18:03:04] <maxbinder>	 nzr: standup? also, we don't see you on the web channel
[18:03:18] <nzr>	 i am on the web channel
[18:13:51] <kaartic>	 Hello everyone
[18:15:01] <kaartic>	 I have a little doubt about the algorithm to used to add spans information to highlight syntax in the "SyntaxHighlighter" class
[18:15:53] <kaartic>	 Anybody here to clear it ?
[18:21:03] <niedzielski>	 kaartic: i'm in a meeting at the moment but i think to some extent that's what the bug is about. i'll take a look shortly
[18:23:06] <kaartic>	 Ok no problem I'll put my doubt here. Answer to it when you are free 
[18:24:41] <kaartic>	 From what i saw I found that there are 2 cases for each syntaxrule one for which the start an end are the same and the other for which thry are different.
[18:24:51] <kaartic>	 *they
[18:26:48] <maxbinder>	 https://tools.wmflabs.org/hatjitsu/22467
[18:28:19] <kaartic>	 I just wanted to know if there was any use for the second case ? I couldn't think of any case where the syntax rule has different start and end symbols
[18:35:09] <niedzielski>	 kaartic: when you say second case, which part of the code are you referring to? the else on line 243?
[18:35:18] <niedzielski>	  the good news is we have some tests written for this class in SyntaxHighlighterTest
[18:36:50] <kaartic>	 niedzielski: yes that's the one
[18:39:04] <niedzielski>	 kaartic: yes, that appears correct. start always seems to be equal to end in the current implementation
[18:39:54] <kaartic>	 Then why is there a big lump of code that's never used
[18:40:49] <kaartic>	 I couldn't think of any syntax that has different start and end symbols except for the HTML comment tag
[18:43:52] <niedzielski>	 kaartic: I'm not sure. Maybe the author supposed it would be nice to allow HTML tags like `<p>`
[18:44:34] <kaartic>	 :))
[18:45:01] <kaartic>	 Are they used in wikis?
[18:49:08] <kaartic>	 BTW I guess I found the culprit. 
[18:49:19] <niedzielski>	 kaartic: `<p>`? I think so
[18:49:24] <niedzielski>	 that's great!
[18:50:14] <kaartic>	 niedzielski: the if statement in the line 220 seems to be the trouble maker
[18:50:43] <kaartic>	 Or maybe I'm wrong
[18:50:58] <kaartic>	 Not so sure
[18:52:49] <niedzielski>	 kaartic: if you can find an input string to stimulate the problem, that would be ideal
[18:55:55] <kaartic>	 Working on it
[18:56:44] <niedzielski>	 👍
[19:06:15] <kaartic>	 Will get back if I find something. 
[19:25:54] <kaartic>	 niedzielski-afk: I guess I found the culprit
[19:27:27] <niedzielski-afk>	 Awesome
[19:44:33] <kaartic>	 I'll explain it later
[19:44:42] <kaartic>	 It's getting late here
[19:45:11] <kaartic>	 Good bye
[19:46:18] <niedzielski>	 thanks kaartic!
[20:21:04] <maxbinder>	 mdholloway: niedzielski reets nataliaharateh did we still want to cancel grooming?
[20:21:39] <niedzielski>	 maxbinder: i'm down with cancelling but attending is fine too
[20:22:59] <mdholloway>	 maxbinder: niedzielski: i'm feeling fairly head-down at the moment, still ok to cancel
[20:28:17] <nataliaharateh>	 maxbinder: ok to cancel & ok to attend
[20:35:45] * niedzielski operating under teh assumption that the meeting is canceled