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

Evaluate ESLint preset to get accurate dependencies. #66

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Nov 21, 2015

Conversation

lijunle
Copy link
Member

@lijunle lijunle commented Nov 21, 2015

  • Evaluate ESLint preset to get accurate dependencies.
  • Update the ESLint special parser test spec.
  • Resolve a bug about bin special parser. Safe handle no package.json case.
  • Resolve a potential bug in webpack test code - use random string for temp folder name.

@lijunle lijunle force-pushed the evaluate-eslint-preset branch 2 times, most recently from eaea57b to c9d6a33 Compare November 21, 2015 14:53
@codecov-io
Copy link

Current coverage is 97.60%

Merging #66 into master will increase coverage by +0.04% as of 931bce1

@@            master    #66   diff @@
=====================================
  Files           12     12       
  Stmts          287    292     +5
  Branches         0      0       
  Methods          0      0       
=====================================
+ Hit            280    285     +5
  Partial          0      0       
  Missed           7      7       

Review entire Coverage Diff as of 931bce1

Powered by Codecov. Updated on successful CI builds.

lijunle added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 21, 2015
Evaluate ESLint preset to get accurate dependencies.
@lijunle lijunle merged commit 75f879a into depcheck:master Nov 21, 2015
@lijunle lijunle deleted the evaluate-eslint-preset branch November 21, 2015 15:46
gtanner pushed a commit to gtanner/depcheck that referenced this pull request Jan 19, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants