-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 104
Conversation
Looks like the AppVeyor container for the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Almost all of this is just changing for (let ...)
to for (const ...)
loops. decaffeinate
emits for (let ...)
since that's the safer option, and expects ESLint to be used to catch (and fix) cases where it can be written as for (const ...)
. Unfortunately the ESLint configuration used within standard
is too simple to catch these automatically.
Other than that I saw a few minor style issues and a few things that actually require changes.
@Arcanemagus I hope you didn't write out every comment each time... I'd have understood even with no comment 😄 |
Copy/paste meant it wasn't much more than the Ctrl + F to find them 😆. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM at least, now we just need somebody to give final approval.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks a lot!
I've glimpsed through the changes and didn't spot anything wrong, so we're good to go 😃
Co-Authored-By: Aerijo <[email protected]>
Requirements
Description of the Change
Decaffeinates the CoffeeScript files inside the
/lib
directory.Also fixes a spec that expected 1 console warning, but mine was giving 5 (it didn't say what they were). As the spec tests the message wording however, it should be safe to change
toBe 1
totoBeGreaterThan 0
Alternate Designs
NA
Benefits
I can understand them now & work on PRs
Possible Drawbacks
FIrst time decaffeinating. May have missed some safe manual conversions. I did note a lot of
foo != null
, so I wasn't sure if values would be coming in asnull
orundefined
and left them mostly alone.Similar with return values (I hate implicit return...). All the specs passed, but that's as much as I can really guarantee. Presumably the return value of a method would be tested if it's important or can vary.
Applicable Issues