Update test-exclude to version 4.0.0 🚀

[greenkeeperio-bot]

Hello lovely humans,

test-exclude just published its new version 4.0.0.

State	Update 🚀
Dependency	test-exclude
New version	4.0.0
Type	dependency

This version is not covered by your current version range.

Without accepting this pull request your project will work just like it did before. There might be a bunch of new features, fixes and perf improvements that the maintainers worked on for you though.

I recommend you look into these changes and try to get onto the latest version of test-exclude.
Given that you have a decent test suite, a passing build is a strong indicator that you can take advantage of these changes by merging the proposed change into your project. Otherwise this branch is a great starting point for you to work on the update.

Do you have any ideas how I could improve these pull requests? Did I report anything you think isn’t right?
Are you unsure about how things are supposed to work?

There is a collection of frequently asked questions and while I’m just a bot, there is a group of people who are happy to teach me new things. Let them know.

Good luck with your project ✨

You rock!

🌴

---

The new version differs by 3 commits .

• d07955b chore(release): 4.0.0
• 6cd0d70 chore(package): update dependencies (#24)
• 59e8bbf feat: add coverage to default excludes (#23)

See the full diff.

---

✨ Try the all new Greenkeeper GitHub Integration ✨
With Integrations first-class bot support landed on GitHub and we’ve rewritten Greenkeeper to take full advantage of it. Simpler setup, fewer pull-requests, faster than ever. Screencast Try it today. Free for private repositories during beta.

[bcoe]

@JaKXz we'll need to update that failing test to not count the coverage folder I believe -- we should probably eyeball the output and make sure that that is in fact what's causing the failure.

I'm still comfortable calling this a minor release rather than a major; it feels like we should have always ignored the .js files in ./coverage.

[JaKXz]

@bcoe fixed the test that was failing since it didn't account for coverage/** being in the list of default excludes. LMK if there's anything else you want on this one.

[bcoe]

this looks good to me; my gut is that it's very unlikely that there are many libraries in the wild that expect coverage to be instrumented ... are we able to instrument coverage with a rule like !covearge?

[JaKXz]

@bcoe I'm pretty sure we have another test somewhere that checks if you can use a negative glob to include node_modules, so I'd say that case is covered.

[astorije]

Hey there!

We removed coverage/ from the exclude list of The Lounge here but I have just noticed that it is not ignored anymore:

Is there something we're doing wrong or that I misunderstood? I thought this change would make explicitly excluding this folder unnecessary.

Thanks!

[bcoe]

@astorije mind opening a new issue, just so I don't lose track of this.

[astorije]

I sure can, but I wanted to make sure I was not doing something stupid first.

EDIT: Done at #557.