Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
doc: add more info to fs.Dir and fix typos - #29890
Conversation
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Trott
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Left some relatively trivial comments, but would be fine if this lands as is, as it's definitely an improvement.
Trott
commented
Oct 9, 2019
(Er, well, the 80-char wrapping will almost certainly have to happen unless the linter surprises me here....) |
Trott
commented
Oct 9, 2019
And...nope...the linter didn't complain about that long line.... should still be wrapped.... strange, though. If I add a line of all text that is longer than 80 chars, it complains. Maybe the new lint config skips over lines with links or something unexpected-to-me like that? /ping @nschonni |
nschonni
commented
Oct 9, 2019
Looks like it doesn't count code content and links https://github.com/remarkjs/remark-lint/blob/1959381435f94ea0107df7e4242a969c1c55f2ff/packages/remark-lint-maximum-line-length/index.js#L114-L115 |
Trott
commented
Oct 9, 2019
So any line that includes a link or inline code will not be checked for length? Oof. (Although I get it--URLs in particular can be longer than 80 chars just by themselves, so....) |
nschonni
commented
Oct 9, 2019
It does check the length, but it ignores code blocks towards the total character count. If you add a few more to that line, then it will flag it. It doesn't look like there is an option to un-ignore those sections |
Trott
commented
Oct 9, 2019
Without the code blocks, that line is still way over 80 characters. Without checking, I wonder if it's a bug where it's ignoring everything between the first and last |
f1bbc20 to
01d2a0bCompareFishrock123
commented
Oct 9, 2019
Fast tracking this would be desirable if possible since there is already another conflicting docs PR: #29906 (upvote this) |
Trott
commented
Oct 9, 2019
Trott
commented
Oct 9, 2019
Argh, needs a rebase. |
Some doc bits / fixes which were missing from cbd8d71
01d2a0b to
02bc272CompareFishrock123
commented
Oct 9, 2019
Lite CI, post-rebase: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/3979/ |
| Created by [`fs.opendir()`][], [`fs.opendirSync()`][], or [`fsPromises.opendir()`][]. | ||
| Example using async interation: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should the typo in this one be fixed too instead of removing the line?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the line should be removed. In general, I dislike putting for example: and similar stuff before code that is obviously an example.
Some doc bits / fixes which were missing from cbd8d71 PR-URL: #29890 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Trott
commented
Oct 10, 2019
Landed in b41989d |
Some doc bits / fixes which were missing from cbd8d71 PR-URL: #29890 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Some doc bits / fixes which were missing from
cbd8d71
Checklist
make -j4 test(UNIX), orvcbuild test(Windows) passes