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

fix: remove Chai frames from .deep.equal stack #1124

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 15, 2018

Conversation

meeber
Copy link
Contributor

@meeber meeber commented Jan 14, 2018

I noticed implementation frames in the .deep.equal stack trace that @keithamus posted in this comment. Those frames were present because .deep.equal called .eql internally without locking the SSFI first. There weren't any tests verifying error messages and stack traces (via err(fn, msg)) for .deep.equal.

@meeber meeber requested a review from a team as a code owner January 14, 2018 16:16
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 14, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #1124 into master will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1124      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.68%   93.69%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          32       32              
  Lines        1646     1649       +3     
  Branches      396      396              
==========================================
+ Hits         1542     1545       +3     
  Misses        104      104
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
lib/chai/core/assertions.js 99.37% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c94f4b6...2f46af8. Read the comment docs.

keithamus
keithamus previously approved these changes Jan 14, 2018
Copy link
Member

@keithamus keithamus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@meeber
Copy link
Contributor Author

meeber commented Jan 14, 2018

Wait don't merge this. There's a problem in the logic: it assumes that flag was previously false. I'll fix in a sec...

@meeber
Copy link
Contributor Author

meeber commented Jan 14, 2018

Fixed rare edge case where the new logic could disable a previously set flag.

Copy link
Member

@keithamus keithamus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

good catch 😄 👍

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

3 participants