-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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
Decaffeinate clean spec #66
Conversation
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.
The changes here look good, and the relevant tests are passing
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.
👍
As @confused-Techie said, the tests pass and the changes look okay.
Some stuff I noticed, but not blocking the PR:
I don't totally understand the aversion to requiring a JSON file, but I suppose the change isn't worth worrying about either. EDIT: It would be too much hassle to start worrying about this in this PR when the approach was already accepted in #65, so disregard this comment, I guess.
There is a redundant commit deleting spec/spec-helper.coffee even though it is also deleted on the target decaf
branch, this will add a little noise to the commit log but beyond that it is a non-issue, just something I saw and will point out as I'm reviewing. Again, I don't think this needs to change -- I would be fine merging this as-is. If in the future you rebase commits for any decaf PRs, you can leave out the commit deleting spec/spec-helper.coffee
for cleanest/simplest commit history. But not a huge deal.
Anyway... I would hope that I said my biggest arguments under that PR - of course, these are still rather minor things but then the change itself is rather minor, too. It's a bit bothering that the code needs to rely on CommonJS either way. :(
Yep... honestly, I never quite understood merge. I understand rebase and I thought the outcome would essentially be the same but apparently not, yuck. I just wanted to avoid PRs building on top of each other. |
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.
Same approval reasons as before, plus the requested whitespace-only change was made. Thank you. 👍
No description provided.