Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
src: wrap source before doing syntax check - #3587
Merged
Merged
Conversation
bnoordhuis
commented
Oct 29, 2015
Member
LGTM if CI etc. |
evanlucas
commented
Oct 29, 2015
ContributorAuthor
thefourtheye
commented
Oct 29, 2015
Contributor
LGTM |
This is to ensure that it is evaluated the same way it would be if it
were to be run by node or required.
Before, the following would pass if run by node, but fail if run via
the syntax check flag:
if (true) {
return;
}
Now, this will pass the syntax check
PR-URL: nodejs#3587
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>evanlucas
commented
Oct 29, 2015
ContributorAuthor
Thanks, landed in 08166cb |
evanlucas
commented
Oct 29, 2015
ContributorAuthor
Do we want to try to get this into v5.0.0 too? |
evanlucas added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2015
This is to ensure that it is evaluated the same way it would be if it
were to be run by node or required.
Before, the following would pass if run by node, but fail if run via
the syntax check flag:
if (true) {
return;
}
Now, this will pass the syntax check
PR-URL: #3587
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>evanlucas added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2015
This is to ensure that it is evaluated the same way it would be if it
were to be run by node or required.
Before, the following would pass if run by node, but fail if run via
the syntax check flag:
if (true) {
return;
}
Now, this will pass the syntax check
PR-URL: #3587
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>jasnell
commented
Oct 29, 2015
Member
Landed in v4.x-staging in 7883294 |
rvagg
commented
Oct 30, 2015
Member
possible semver-minor? |
evanlucas
commented
Oct 30, 2015
ContributorAuthor
I would think it's a bug fix, but if you feel differently, whatever works for me |
jasnell
commented
Oct 30, 2015
Member
I'd say bug fix.
|
thefourtheye
commented
Oct 30, 2015
Contributor
+1 for bug fix. |
evanlucas added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 7, 2015
This is to ensure that it is evaluated the same way it would be if it
were to be run by node or required.
Before, the following would pass if run by node, but fail if run via
the syntax check flag:
if (true) {
return;
}
Now, this will pass the syntax check
PR-URL: #3587
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Merged
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is to ensure that it is evaluated the same way it would be if it
were to be run by node or required.
Before, the following would pass if run by node, but fail if run via
the syntax check flag:
Now, this will pass the syntax check
Reported in #2411 (comment)