Apply --checkjs to bind diagnostics as well as check diagnostics #16210
Conversation
Report unreachable code in JS files when --checkjs is passed, but not otherwise.
|
@amcasey, |
| // For JavaScript files, we don't want to report semantic errors unless explicitly requested. | ||
| const includeCheckDiagnostics = !isSourceFileJavaScript(sourceFile) || isCheckJsEnabledForFile(sourceFile, options); | ||
| const checkDiagnostics = includeCheckDiagnostics ? typeChecker.getDiagnostics(sourceFile, cancellationToken) : []; | ||
| const includeBindAndCheckDiagnostics = !isSourceFileJavaScript(sourceFile) || isCheckJsEnabledForFile(sourceFile, options); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will do. What's the difference? Fewer allocations?
src/compiler/program.ts
Outdated
| const checkDiagnostics = includeCheckDiagnostics ? typeChecker.getDiagnostics(sourceFile, cancellationToken) : []; | ||
| const includeBindAndCheckDiagnostics = !isSourceFileJavaScript(sourceFile) || isCheckJsEnabledForFile(sourceFile, options); | ||
| const bindDiagnostics = includeBindAndCheckDiagnostics ? sourceFile.bindDiagnostics : []; | ||
| const checkDiagnostics = includeBindAndCheckDiagnostics ? typeChecker.getDiagnostics(sourceFile, cancellationToken) : []; |
|
also you need to accept baselines |
|
@mhegazy, rather than updating the baselines, would it make more sense to add set checkjs in the newly failing tests? It looks like they wanted the errors. |
sounds good. |
|
@mhegazy, a couple of the baselines are showing some new bind errors. Can you please confirm that they're acceptable? |
|
The baselines match the behaviour of .ts files, so the changes are fine. Although the strict mode messages are basically dupes of the normal messages, which is not great and should maybe be fixed separately. |
|
I'll start porting this to 2.3 now. |
For example, do not report unreachable code in JS files unless --checkjs is passed.