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

Improve babel-generator's code coverage #5338

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 25, 2017

Conversation

oleksandr-kuzmenko
Copy link
Contributor

@oleksandr-kuzmenko oleksandr-kuzmenko commented Feb 18, 2017

Q A
Patch: Bug Fix? no
Major: Breaking Change? no
Minor: New Feature? no
Deprecations? no
Spec Compliancy? yes
Tests Added/Pass? yes
Fixed Tickets #5326
License MIT
Doc PR
Dependency Changes no

I worked on improvement babel-generators code coverage: added a couple of tests, removed the code that does not meet spec (ExportAllDeclaration has no exported field, proof) and I proposed to remove the obsolete code (7e540cd).

I see no reason to test this code, it is deleted in 7.0.

@mention-bot
Copy link

@Alxpy, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @loganfsmyth, @hzoo and @cpojer to be potential reviewers.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Feb 18, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #5338 into master will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5338      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.44%   89.52%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         204      204              
  Lines        9949     9944       -5     
  Branches     2689     2688       -1     
==========================================
+ Hits         8899     8902       +3     
+ Misses       1050     1042       -8
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
packages/babel-generator/src/generators/modules.js 100% <ø> (+3.44%)
...ages/babel-generator/src/generators/expressions.js 96.15% <ø> (+3.07%)

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 07dd2b1...6bc7a49. Read the comment docs.

@existentialism existentialism added pkg: generator PR: Internal 🏠 A type of pull request used for our changelog categories labels Feb 19, 2017
@@ -45,12 +45,6 @@ export function ExportAllDeclaration(node: Object) {
this.word("export");
this.space();
this.token("*");
if (node.exported) {
Copy link
Member

@hzoo hzoo Feb 22, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah yeah I was thinking of export * as ns from 'mod'; from https://babeljs.io/docs/plugins/transform-export-extensions/ but it's a different node - ExportNamespaceSpecifier ^

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was thinking it is ExportNamedDeclaration -- babel/babylon#367

Copy link
Member

@hzoo hzoo Feb 22, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You can plug it into https://astexplorer.net: * as ns is ExportNamespaceSpecifier

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

oh, yes, I watched, sorry... we just talked about different parts of the AST =)

Copy link
Member

@xtuc xtuc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice work 👍

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
let a = do {
Copy link
Member

@aaronang aaronang Feb 23, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Given your test case, when it fails, you might not be sure that it is actually the DoExpression that is failing. So in this case, I would argue that we might want to go for a more isolated test like:

(do {})

@hzoo @xtuc What are your thoughts on this?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure - we can add ^ in this test as well

@hzoo hzoo merged commit 01918c6 into babel:master Feb 25, 2017
@lock lock bot added the outdated A closed issue/PR that is archived due to age. Recommended to make a new issue label Oct 6, 2019
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 6, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
outdated A closed issue/PR that is archived due to age. Recommended to make a new issue pkg: generator PR: Internal 🏠 A type of pull request used for our changelog categories
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants