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

Adjust babel special to eslint implementation #484

Merged

Conversation

dword-design
Copy link
Contributor

In fact the babel and eslint special do pretty similar things. This PR unifies the implementation so that the babel special uses the parsing semantics of the linting special(s).

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 12, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #484 into master will decrease coverage by 0.13%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #484      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.22%   99.09%   -0.14%     
==========================================
  Files          40       40              
  Lines         773      770       -3     
==========================================
- Hits          767      763       -4     
- Misses          6        7       +1
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/special/babel.js 97.5% <100%> (-2.5%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c40bc65...eee35d6. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@rumpl rumpl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

@rumpl rumpl merged commit 2f28655 into depcheck:master Dec 12, 2019
@dword-design dword-design deleted the 2019-12-12/unify-babel-and-eslint branch December 20, 2019 13:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants