Ref: #81

Strict mode is currently only used for toggling compromised lock behaviour

Codecov Report

Merging #86 into master will increase coverage by 1.70%. The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master       #86      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   98.29%   100.00%   +1.70%     
===========================================
  Files           4         6       +2     
  Lines         176       205      +29     
  Branches       45        50       +5     
===========================================
+ Hits          173       205      +32     
+ Misses          3         0       -3     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lib/lockfile.js	100.00% <100.00%> (+2.45%)	:arrow_up:
test/util/wait.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/mtime-precision.js	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)

---

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 1a478a4...c19d934. Read the comment docs.

@pimlie I would prefer to not add any option and actually make this the default. This means that the PR would be much simpler by just changing this to not throw: https://github.com/moxystudio/node-proper-lockfile/blob/c0cdea2e86ea28acff66ac1194fc45debfee0d87/lib/lockfile.js#L240

@satazor What about still removing the lock when its compromised? I guess you are opposed to that?

The reason I added it because I actually like the idea that both processes will generate a warning untill we figured out why the lock was compromised in the first place.

If the lock has been compromised, it usually means that someone else got the lock. It would be bad to delete the lock in that situation.

Updated as requested :)