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

Brace dependecy #1

Closed
jpsc opened this issue Apr 27, 2016 · 6 comments
Closed

Brace dependecy #1

jpsc opened this issue Apr 27, 2016 · 6 comments

Comments

@jpsc
Copy link

jpsc commented Apr 27, 2016

Trying to update the dependency of brace to 1.8 but got some tests failing that seems related to how brace is actually handling things differently.
Should this be a no go for updating to 1.x or should be change tests ?

I got here because I was getting some warning's of outdated use of lodash from brace 0.x.

Cheers.

@jonschlinkert
Copy link
Member

Can you paste in the error so I can take a look? It might just be that braces needs to be updated. Also I haven't used lodash in ages, it would be good to know where that error originates so I can fix it. thanks

@jpsc
Copy link
Author

jpsc commented Apr 28, 2016

This is test error output when I run tests after updating braces to 1.8.2.

given an array of patterns with braces
    braces
      ✓ should work with a list of strings
      ✓ should work with arrays of strings
      ✓ should work with no braces
      ✓ should uniquify the result.
      ✓ should work with one value
      ✓ should work with nested non-sets
      ✓ should work with commas.
      ✓ should expand sets
      1) should throw an error when imbalanced braces are found.
    range expansion
      ✓ should expand numerical ranges
      ✓ should honor padding
      ✓ should expand alphabetical ranges
      2) should use a custom function for expansions.
      3) should use a custom function for expansions.
    should expand a combination of nested sets and ranges.
      ✓ should expand sets


  12 passing (19ms)
  3 failing

  1) given an array of patterns with braces braces should throw an error when imbalanced braces are found.:
     AssertionError: expected [Function] to throw exception
      at Proxy.Assertion.fail (node_modules/should/lib/assertion.js:228:17)
      at Proxy.prop.(anonymous function) (node_modules/should/lib/assertion.js:69:14)
      at Context.<anonymous> (test.js:50:22)

  2) given an array of patterns with braces range expansion should use a custom function for expansions.:

      AssertionError: expected [ '97', '99', '101', '103', '105', '107', '109', '111' ] to equal [ 'a0', 'b1', 'c2', 'd3', 'e4', 'f5', 'g6', 'h7' ] (at '0', A has '97' and B has 'a0')
      + expected - actual

       [
      -  "97"
      -  "99"
      -  "101"
      -  "103"
      -  "105"
      -  "107"
      -  "109"
      -  "111"
      +  "a0"
      +  "b1"
      +  "c2"
      +  "d3"
      +  "e4"
      +  "f5"
      +  "g6"
      +  "h7"
       ]

      at Proxy.Assertion.fail (node_modules/should/lib/assertion.js:228:17)
      at Proxy.prop.(anonymous function) (node_modules/should/lib/assertion.js:69:14)
      at Context.<anonymous> (test.js:72:20)

  3) given an array of patterns with braces range expansion should use a custom function for expansions.:

      AssertionError: expected [ '_97', '_98', '_99', '_100', '_101', '_102', '_103', '_104' ] to equal [ '_a', '_b', '_c', '_d', '_e', '_f', '_g', '_h' ] (at '0', A has '_97' and B has '_a')
      + expected - actual

       [
      -  "_97"
      -  "_98"
      -  "_99"
      -  "_100"
      -  "_101"
      -  "_102"
      -  "_103"
      -  "_104"
      +  "_a"
      +  "_b"
      +  "_c"
      +  "_d"
      +  "_e"
      +  "_f"
      +  "_g"
      +  "_h"
       ]

      at Proxy.Assertion.fail (node_modules/should/lib/assertion.js:228:17)
      at Proxy.prop.(anonymous function) (node_modules/should/lib/assertion.js:69:14)
      at Context.<anonymous> (test.js:79:20)

@jonschlinkert
Copy link
Member

ok thanks for the extra info. I believe that will be fixed by the latest version. I'll try to get to this today, if not this weekend.

@jonschlinkert
Copy link
Member

Haven't forgotten about this. I worked on related libs this weekend. I'll get this fixed asap

@jpsc
Copy link
Author

jpsc commented May 2, 2016

Thanks for the update. It's not that you own me anything. I'm grateful for such short answers. Keep the great work.

@jonschlinkert
Copy link
Member

closing in favor of #2

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants