Skip to content
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

[Docs] order: update the description of the pathGroupsExcludedImportTypes option #2239

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

liby
Copy link
Contributor

@liby liby commented Sep 28, 2021

Motivation: #2156

#1665 I read this issue and knowing why we had this PR, but I think they use pathGroupsExcludedImportTypes in the wrong way. If we need to let pathGroup works, sometimes we have to add pathGroupsExcludedImportTypes as [].

@Mairu @Akiq2016 @yola-0316 PTAL.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 28, 2021

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 94.63%. Comparing base (dd81424) to head (74450a3).
Report is 295 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2239      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.23%   94.63%   -0.60%     
==========================================
  Files          65       65              
  Lines        2686     2686              
  Branches      888      888              
==========================================
- Hits         2558     2542      -16     
- Misses        128      144      +16     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@liby liby closed this by deleting the head repository Aug 15, 2024
@Mairu
Copy link
Contributor

Mairu commented Aug 15, 2024

Sorry, I missed this PR when it was opened, but yes the changes are correct and the current documentation is wrong. Using patterns as excluded types works accidentally because the default types are removed.

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Aug 15, 2024

it's very unfortunate that the fork was deleted, making this PR unrecoverable, so now we need #3036 as a duplicate :-/

please never delete a fork that has open PRs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants