Skip to content
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

Update no-dynamic-require.md #693

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 21, 2017
Merged

Update no-dynamic-require.md #693

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 21, 2017

Conversation

yooungt13
Copy link
Contributor

require('../name' + name);
it should not be passed

require('../name' + name);  
it should not be passed
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Dec 20, 2016

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 94.86% when pulling d878b36 on yooungt13:patch-1 into e26e898 on benmosher:master.

@@ -18,7 +18,5 @@ require(name());
### Pass

```js
require('../name');
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this isn't a dynamic require, and it should pass.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

True, but it seems like it is duplicated a bit below.
@yooungt13 If you could, instead of removing it, replace it by a library import (like lodash), that might be better for the purpose of the example :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I thought the purpose was to illustrate that both a string literal, and a template literal with no interpolations, would pass?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Aah... yes, you're right. I totally missed the difference in quotes. Yes, this line should stay as it was.

@jfmengels
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks @yooungt13, good catch :)

I'm fine with this, but I left a comment to improve this if you don't mind :)

@jfmengels jfmengels merged commit ffc0205 into import-js:master Jan 21, 2017
@jfmengels
Copy link
Collaborator

I fixed the issue. Thanks again for reporting this @yooungt13!

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jan 21, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-1.3%) to 93.609% when pulling f5b9a37 on yooungt13:patch-1 into e26e898 on benmosher:master.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants