-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.6k
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
feat!: detect duplicate test cases #17955
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for docs-eslint canceled.
|
We are waiting on #17654 for this, correct? |
No I think we can treat them as independent. |
* main: chore: Split Docs CI from core CI (eslint#17897) fix: Ensure config keys are printed for config errors (eslint#17980) chore: delete relative-module-resolver.js (eslint#17981) docs: migration guide entry for `no-inner-declarations` (eslint#17977) docs: Update README feat: maintain latest ecma version in ESLint (eslint#17958) feat!: no-inner-declaration new default behaviour and option (eslint#17885) feat: add `no-useless-assignment` rule (eslint#17625) fix: `no-misleading-character-class` edge cases with granular errors (eslint#17970) feat: `no-misleading-character-class` granular errors (eslint#17515) docs: fix number of code-path events on custom rules page (eslint#17969) docs: reorder entries in v9 migration guide (eslint#17967) fix!: handle `--output-file` for empty output when saving to disk (eslint#17957)
* main: docs: Update note about ECMAScript support (eslint#17991) chore: update `markdownlint` to `v0.33.0` (eslint#17995) docs: Update release blog post template (eslint#17994) docs: Add sections on non-npm plugin configuration (eslint#17984) 9.0.0-alpha.1 Build: changelog update for 9.0.0-alpha.1 chore: package.json update for @eslint/js release
This is ready for review. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
need to add it to the migration guide, otherwise LGTM! 👍
lib/rule-tester/rule-tester.js
Outdated
* @private | ||
*/ | ||
function checkDuplicateTestCase(item, seenTestCases) { | ||
if ((Array.isArray(item.options) && item.options.some(i => typeof i === "object")) || item.settings || item.languageOptions?.parser || item.languageOptions?.parserOptions || item.plugins) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
there is a room to improve it, but I think it's fine to just check these properties 👍 - as it's described in the rfc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's a start.
However, I would love it if I could replace this bail-out logic with a simple function call to see if a given object is serializable. Surprisingly, I haven't found a third-party library to do this. Another option is to try to piece together such a function based on StackOverflow snippets (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30579940/reliable-way-to-check-if-objects-is-serializable-in-) etc and add unit tests for it. Thoughts?
It might be best to solve this the right way now (in a way that avoids a lot of false negatives) since changing this later could be a breaking change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMHO, it's not worth adding a new dependency: rule tester is shipped with eslint, but most eslint users don't really use it. A simple implementation to cover 90%+ cases is good enough for me. 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I went ahead and added a isSerializable()
function which uses only the tiny lodash.isplainobject
as a dependency. While the previous approach could have been sufficient as you mentioned, this new approach is a lot more robust (no false negatives) and the code is cleaner.
@christian-bromann looks like our browser tests are failing again, can you take a look? |
@nzakas on it |
@nzakas @bmish I've discovered a performance regression with the recent release which forced me to find the culprit which I did successfully. The browser tests should run much faster now and should be more reliable too. Please re-trigger the build and the fix should be picked up automatically. |
It works now, thanks! |
Prerequisites checklist
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to an item)
[ ] Documentation update
[ ] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[ ] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofix to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[x] Add something to the core
[ ] Other, please explain:
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
Fixes #15104, alongside:
Link to this feature in the RFC:
Inspired by:
Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
Are we okay with adding this
isSerializable()
function? Surprisingly, I couldn't find any third-party library that offers it. I had an alternative approach visible in b400d1e that simply checked for the presence of any properties that might not be serializable, but this could have false negatives. See discussion in #17955 (comment).TODO: