feat(coverage): second transformer build does not print typescript #3561
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Your org has enabled the Graphite merge queue for merging into mainAdd the label “merge” to the PR and Graphite will automatically add it to the merge queue when it’s ready to merge. Or use the label “hotfix” to add to the merge queue as a hot fix. You must have a Graphite account and log in to Graphite in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link. |
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. |
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #3561 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
Dunqing
force-pushed
the
06-06-feat_coverage_second_transformer_build_does_not_print_typescript
branch
from
4ceed56 to
70c5d61
Compare
|
Shall we just combine these 2 PRs and fix most things at once? |
|
This is a great idea. But we're missing one possible class of bugs - if TS nodes are left in after 1st transform pass, but deleted in 2nd transform pass, that's a bug, but this test won't catch it currently. I suggest we codegen twice after 1st pass - once with TS nodes printed, once without - and compare the 2 there. |
Wait for me to fix a redundant semicolon issue, this will fix tons of mismatch cases |
Dunqing
force-pushed
the
06-06-feat_coverage_second_transformer_build_does_not_print_typescript
branch
from
70c5d61 to
df7d0a4
Compare
Dunqing
force-pushed
the
06-06-feat_coverage_second_transformer_build_does_not_print_typescript
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5c5cbba to
78d4c88
Compare
Dunqing
force-pushed
the
06-06-feat_coverage_second_transformer_build_does_not_print_typescript
branch
from
78d4c88 to
98a5b03
Compare
Merge activity
|
Boshen
force-pushed
the
06-06-feat_transformer_typescript_remove_typescript_ast_nodes
branch
from
900bc42 to
81aea1c
Compare
Boshen
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2024
…3561) Currently, we lack a test to check if the TS AST has been completely deleted. I have thought of a way to test it. Let's have our idempotency test print the TypeScript code the first time and the second time print the JavaScript code only. If the two results do not match, it means that there are still undeleted TS ASTs or other bugs. Since ideally the TS ASTs are completely deleted, the two results should be the same.
Boshen
force-pushed
the
06-06-feat_coverage_second_transformer_build_does_not_print_typescript
branch
from
98a5b03 to
fa67c9f
Compare
Boshen
force-pushed
the
06-06-feat_transformer_typescript_remove_typescript_ast_nodes
branch
from
81aea1c to
cd4ae5a
Compare
Boshen
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2024
…3561) Currently, we lack a test to check if the TS AST has been completely deleted. I have thought of a way to test it. Let's have our idempotency test print the TypeScript code the first time and the second time print the JavaScript code only. If the two results do not match, it means that there are still undeleted TS ASTs or other bugs. Since ideally the TS ASTs are completely deleted, the two results should be the same.
Boshen
force-pushed
the
06-06-feat_coverage_second_transformer_build_does_not_print_typescript
branch
from
fa67c9f to
7ed6080
Compare
…3561) Currently, we lack a test to check if the TS AST has been completely deleted. I have thought of a way to test it. Let's have our idempotency test print the TypeScript code the first time and the second time print the JavaScript code only. If the two results do not match, it means that there are still undeleted TS ASTs or other bugs. Since ideally the TS ASTs are completely deleted, the two results should be the same.
Dunqing
force-pushed
the
06-06-feat_transformer_typescript_remove_typescript_ast_nodes
branch
from
cd4ae5a to
e8a20f8
Compare
Dunqing
force-pushed
the
06-06-feat_coverage_second_transformer_build_does_not_print_typescript
branch
from
7ed6080 to
5c8e16c
Compare
Dunqing
changed the base branch from
06-06-feat_transformer_typescript_remove_typescript_ast_nodes
to
main
graphite-app
bot
deleted the
06-06-feat_coverage_second_transformer_build_does_not_print_typescript
branch
Merged
Boshen
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 7, 2024
## [0.13.4] - 2024-06-07 ### Features - 5c8e16c coverage: Second transformer build does not print typescript (#3561) (Dunqing) - 646b993 coverage/transformer: Handle @jsx option (#3553) (Dunqing) - a939ddd transformer/typescript: Remove more typescript ast nodes (#3563) (Dunqing) - e8a20f8 transformer/typescript: Remove typescript ast nodes (#3559) (Dunqing) - ee9a215 transformer/typescript: Handle namespace directive correctly (#3532) (Dunqing) ### Bug Fixes - affb2c8 codegen: Print indentation before directive (#3512) (Dunqing) - f6939cb transformer: Store `react_importer` in `Bindings` in JSX transform (#3551) (overlookmotel) - 7982b93 transformer: Correct spans for JSX transform (#3549) (overlookmotel) - c00598b transformer: JSX set `reference_id` on refs to imports (#3524) (overlookmotel) ### Performance - 37cdc13 transformer: Faster checks if JSX plugin enabled (#3577) (overlookmotel) - 9f467b8 transformer: Avoid fragment update where possible (#3535) (overlookmotel) - ac394f0 transformer: JSX parse pragma only once (#3534) (overlookmotel) ### Documentation - 1d3c0d7 span: Add doc comments to `oxc_span::Span` (#3543) (Don Isaac) ### Refactor - f2113ae transformer: Reduce cloning and referencing `Rc`s (#3576) (overlookmotel) - 0948124 transformer: Pass `Rc`s by value (#3550) (overlookmotel) - e4d74ac transformer: Remove `update_fragment` from JSX transform (#3541) (overlookmotel) - 73b7864 transformer: Combine import and usage in JSX transform (#3540) (overlookmotel) - 6978269 transformer/typescript: Replace reference collector with symbols references (#3533) (Dunqing) Co-authored-by: Boshen <Boshen@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently, we lack a test to check if the TS AST has been completely deleted. I have thought of a way to test it. Let's have our idempotency test print the TypeScript code the first time and the second time print the JavaScript code only. If the two results do not match, it means that there are still undeleted TS ASTs or other bugs. Since ideally the TS ASTs are completely deleted, the two results should be the same.