compat-table
compat-table copied to clipboard
Updates to pr1827
Fixes issues introduced in #1827, namely:
- runner_support.js mixing usage of the
print
andconsole.log
commands, neither of which will both work on any environment - exceptions occurring during running of tests cluttering the stdout
Includes extracting createIterableHelper
out from runner_support, as it's used by the node.js
script, which must remain working on older NodeJS versions (and thus should be authored in ES3), while runner_support.js does not have that ES3 requirement (and thus can use newer syntax)
It seems like you're adding try/catches in a number of places that didn't have them before; won't that mask errors in the test code we want caught?
Prior to #1827 there also were try/catched around the eval of the testcode:
- https://github.com/compat-table/compat-table/pull/1827/files#diff-9ae6f9d9f0960230222e4bfb5f9282bcb02bd4e8e4220272bdfe4bd7ef1db3a7L88
- https://github.com/compat-table/compat-table/pull/1827/files#diff-48b230a7f01f4595f2a9df8af1db79063c8a0e0458de67e4873877d98880cbb6L83
- https://github.com/compat-table/compat-table/pull/1827/files#diff-3744f0f40c1d8d08319f4dce83919405e334cf138b46cc16e9848cb88a1a5489L159
- etc.
gotcha, so it's restoring them, good.
I see the pretest stage fails due to linting. For now I fixed it to the specific file that had warnings, but going forward what's the desired way?
- Globally allow newer js, limit to es3 only on the data-*.js files, node.js en master.js? Or
- The other way around: globally limit to es3, allowing newer js on runner_support.js/build.js & the various runner .js files?
Is there anything I must do now to move this PR along?
I see the pretest stage fails due to linting. For now I fixed it to the specific file that had warnings, but going forward what's the desired way?
- Globally allow newer js, limit to es3 only on the data-*.js files, node.js en master.js? Or
- The other way around: globally limit to es3, allowing newer js on runner_support.js/build.js & the various runner .js files?
i would go with option 2; the default should be the safest thing.
i would go with option 2; the default should be the safest thing.
k, that's what I figured as well and thus what I already did :-)
Just now waiting for that second approval...
@chicoxyzzy any chance you can review this one?