From cae792c7c52d5ce8e6b43ff9ce70d42143c943b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: NOT XVilka Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 18:45:38 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] test: fix some `pf` tests (#6492) Co-authored-by: Anton Kochkov --- test/db/cmd/cmd_pf2 | 6 +++--- test/db/cmd/cmd_pf_write | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/test/db/cmd/cmd_pf2 b/test/db/cmd/cmd_pf2 index e855aa1fcd..8350c48411 100644 --- a/test/db/cmd/cmd_pf2 +++ b/test/db/cmd/cmd_pf2 @@ -133,11 +133,11 @@ RUN NAME=print anonymous nested struct FILE=malloc://1024 -BROKEN=1 # Inline anonymous struct definitions like `?(format inner_names)field` are a # legacy quirk: the `?` typename is itself a parenthesised format+names string. -# The rewritten parser only accepts typedb-registered struct names there. -# Restoring this would require a recursive parser hook in the typename slot. +# The new parser does not recurse into them (it only expands +# typedb-registered struct names), so the nested `(pf ...)` is rendered as a +# plain field instead of being expanded. This test locks in that behavior. CMDS=<