Problem: a closing fold expression may unexpectedly start a new fold
when it should end a fold
(reported by Shota Nozaki)
Solution: if a fold hasn't started yet, do not immediately
start a new fold with level 1
(Shota Nozaki)
fixes: #12768
closes: #13748
Signed-off-by: Shota Nozaki <emonkak@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian Brabandt <cb@256bit.org>
break;
// "<1", "<2", .. : end a fold with a certain level
- case '<': flp->lvl_next = n - 1;
+ case '<': // To prevent an unexpected start of a new fold, the next
+ // level must not exceed the level of the current fold.
+ flp->lvl_next = MIN(flp->lvl, n - 1);
flp->end = n;
break;
bwipe!
endfunc
+" Make sure that when ending a fold that hasn't been started, it does not
+" start a new fold.
+func Test_foldexpr_end_fold()
+ new
+ setlocal foldmethod=expr
+ let &l:foldexpr = 'v:lnum == 2 ? "<2" : "="'
+ call setline(1, range(1, 3))
+ redraw
+ call assert_equal([0, 0, 0], range(1, 3)->map('foldlevel(v:val)'))
+
+ bwipe!
+endfunc
+
" vim: shiftwidth=2 sts=2 expandtab
static int included_patches[] =
{ /* Add new patch number below this line */
+/**/
+ 2,
/**/
1,
/**/