update highlight.js to 9.15.6 #6658
Conversation
GiteaBot
added
the
lgtm/need 1
GiteaBot
added
lgtm/done
|
I would say that I'm not sure how you've built this. (I remember that this was described somewhere and I do trust you not to have put a horrible hack in). however we could do with a good way to compare this to ensure that this is the highlight.pack.js that we should be using. |
|
@zeripath here is how to build if you want to verify https://highlightjs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/building-testing.html |
|
Built using Should give you SHA256 The build contains all languages, so the script went from ~450kB to ~670kB. |
|
Ah ok from the git clone! Thanks @silverwind ! |
|
I can verify per above commands |
|
Built on Node.js v11.13.0, but I doubt it matters. |
|
Thanks @silverwind ! |
|
Hmm.. I'm getting a different sha. I am using nvm so I was able to target the same version of node in use. Let me try a few things. |
|
I get a different sha256sum too mine is b251f1a22f401cd82e5e96e1f9247104635bf5e38dc39ef03271a363e9638b82 Wonder why its happening? (❯ node -v [21:58:09] |
|
Actually the built version is not 9.15.6 but current git master. Not sure if it's worth to revert to the release tag, it seems to work and master contains a few unreleased fixes that might be interesting to have. |
|
I'm able to match the same sha as @zeripath on latest master commit. For the tagged 9.15.6 version I get |
|
Built on another machine with node 11.14.0, still got |
|
@silverwind perhaps we are on different commits for master (in case you cloned/forked it earlier). I'm on commit |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #6658 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 40.54% 40.55% +<.01%
==========================================
Files 406 406
Lines 54501 54501
==========================================
+ Hits 22099 22102 +3
+ Misses 29366 29362 -4
- Partials 3036 3037 +1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Nope, also on |
|
Do you have any development versions installed using npm install ? That could be it. |
|
Prob best to push the reproducible pack up. |
|
Can't explain why but the differences are in the minfied variable names: @@ -16,11 +16,11 @@
000000f0 65 66 69 6e 65 28 5b 5d 2c 66 75 6e 63 74 69 6f |efine([],functio|
00000100 6e 28 29 7b 72 65 74 75 72 6e 20 74 2e 68 6c 6a |n(){return t.hlj|
00000110 73 7d 29 29 7d 28 66 75 6e 63 74 69 6f 6e 28 69 |s}))}(function(i|
-00000120 29 7b 76 61 72 20 64 3d 5b 5d 2c 6c 3d 4f 62 6a |){var d=[],l=Obj|
-00000130 65 63 74 2e 6b 65 79 73 2c 62 3d 7b 7d 2c 73 3d |ect.keys,b={},s=|
+00000120 29 7b 76 61 72 20 70 3d 5b 5d 2c 6c 3d 4f 62 6a |){var p=[],l=Obj|
+00000130 65 63 74 2e 6b 65 79 73 2c 62 3d 7b 7d 2c 6d 3d |ect.keys,b={},m=|
00000140 7b 7d 2c 74 3d 2f 5e 28 6e 6f 2d 3f 68 69 67 68 |{},t=/^(no-?high|
00000150 6c 69 67 68 74 7c 70 6c 61 69 6e 7c 74 65 78 74 |light|plain|text|
-00000160 29 24 2f 69 2c 5f 3d 2f 5c 62 6c 61 6e 67 28 3f |)$/i,_=/\blang(?|
+00000160 29 24 2f 69 2c 75 3d 2f 5c 62 6c 61 6e 67 28 3f |)$/i,u=/\blang(?|
00000170 3a 75 61 67 65 29 3f 2d 28 5b 5c 77 2d 5d 2b 29 |:uage)?-([\w-]+)|
00000180 5c 62 2f 69 2c 72 3d 2f 28 28 5e 28 3c 5b 5e 3e |\b/i,r=/((^(<[^>|
00000190 5d 2b 3e 7c 5c 74 7c 29 2b 7c 28 3f 3a 5c 6e 29 |]+>|\t|)+|(?:\n)|Seems their build process is non-deterministic, but I guess it's no big deal. I'll push the version built in docker. |
|
No problems. Thanks again @silverwind. |
|
Pushed the one with |
Not sure if this fixes any open issues (it does not address #6057), but I think it's time we update it.