-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 248
ts-migration/convert-is-utils-fns #310
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
Merged
SimenB
merged 9 commits into
jest-community:reapply-ts
from
G-Rath:ts-migration/convert-is-utils-fns
Jul 19, 2019
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
7af4d68
chore: convert `isHook` util fn to typescript
G-Rath 0cd9c35
chore: convert `isTestCase` util fn to typescript
G-Rath 4292e6c
chore: convert util enums to string enums
G-Rath ddd65ad
chore: export util enums
G-Rath 51a4d62
chore: make `is<x>` util functions type guards
G-Rath b46d546
chore: refactor `lowercase-name` to use new util guards
G-Rath f91e05a
chore: remove unneeded `istanbul ignore next`
G-Rath 9a80161
chore: use util enums in `lowercase-name` tests
G-Rath 1e168e0
chore: use range type
SimenB File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
doesn't
(isTestCase(node) || isDescribe(node))cover this line?Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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 was going to ask you about that :)
Previously the check was just for these three functions, and the description & tests for the rule only focus on those three:
I think it should be fine to remove that line, but wanted to implement the original behaviour + ask first, in case that was part of the point of that rule that the community requested (or something)
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.
ah right, since we'd now get
xtest,ftestetc? I think it's fine to detect all - they're just modifiers on the same functionsThere 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.
We can do that in a follow-up, though