-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.8k
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
test_runner: remove redundant check from coverage #48070
Conversation
Review requested:
|
I am not sure I understand why this is redundant |
lib/internal/test_runner/coverage.js
Outdated
if (StringPrototypeIncludes(url, '/node_modules/') || | ||
// On Windows some generated coverages are invalid. | ||
!StringPrototypeStartsWith(url, 'file:')) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we start with the file:
check so core modules can still skip the /node_modules/
check? I suggest we also remove the comment which looks a bit out of place/context.
if (StringPrototypeIncludes(url, '/node_modules/') || | |
// On Windows some generated coverages are invalid. | |
!StringPrototypeStartsWith(url, 'file:')) { | |
if (!StringPrototypeStartsWith(url, 'file:') || StringPrototypeIncludes(url, '/node_modules/')) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll remove the comment. I think having the node_modules check first will be more beneficial in real world apps where the node_modules directory makes up the bulk of the app.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's fair, maybe add a comment explaining the order was chosen purposefully and why
All of the valid coverages should start with |
The code coverage reporting logic already filters out URLs that don't start with 'file:', so there is no need to also filter out URLs that start with 'node:'.
Landed in b47fce0 |
The code coverage reporting logic already filters out URLs that don't start with 'file:', so there is no need to also filter out URLs that start with 'node:'. PR-URL: #48070 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Debadree Chatterjee <[email protected]>
The code coverage reporting logic already filters out URLs that don't start with 'file:', so there is no need to also filter out URLs that start with 'node:'. PR-URL: #48070 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Debadree Chatterjee <[email protected]>
The code coverage reporting logic already filters out URLs that don't start with 'file:', so there is no need to also filter out URLs that start with 'node:'. PR-URL: nodejs#48070 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Debadree Chatterjee <[email protected]>
The code coverage reporting logic already filters out URLs that don't start with 'file:', so there is no need to also filter out URLs that start with 'node:'. PR-URL: nodejs#48070 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Debadree Chatterjee <[email protected]>
The code coverage reporting logic already filters out URLs that don't start with 'file:', so there is no need to also filter out URLs that start with 'node:'. PR-URL: nodejs#48070 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Debadree Chatterjee <[email protected]>
The code coverage reporting logic already filters out URLs that don't start with 'file:', so there is no need to also filter out URLs that start with 'node:'.