Pietro Marchini

@cjihrig, thank you for the explanation, it makes perfect sense 😁 I suppose this problem will be fixed as soon as https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/54832 is backported to 22.x, right?

Hey @aduh95, I just tested locally, and I think we're missing this PR: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/54881 (landed in commit https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/dbaef339aad329aaf7e1b23072da7462ed9543e1) I tried cherry-picking that specific commit into `22.x-staging`, and it fixes this...

Hey @miguelmarcondesf, thanks for the contribution 🚀 My 2 cents on this: while I understand the reasons behind this refactor, if I’m not mistaken, I don’t see any options actually...

I would say yes, but I noticed that a previous PR was almost accepted, and I didn't investigate further, my bad! I believe the reason for no broken tests is...

> We should definitely add tests. I'm on it. Thanks for your input, @cjihrig! 😄 While trying to replicate the issue, I've noticed that the proposed changes only partially solve...

> > I was thinking about adding some tests for getCoverageReport. > > I think that's a good idea. Hey @cjihrig, I've prepared 2 different ways of testing this behavior:...

Hey @cjihrig, yes, I'm reworking it and will come up with a proposal in 1-2 days

Hey @cjihrig, While working on this, I compared our output with that of other coverage tools. I've looked at many of them, and for the "base" format, I believe a...

@RedYetiDev, you're right. I think I expressed myself poorly. What I meant was to avoid, where possible, truncations or ellipses that make the content of the output difficult to understand,...

> This modifies an existing behavior, is it semver-major? @RedYetiDev, if this proposed solution is accepted, then yes, it will be a breaking change. At the moment, I think this...