ignore the sort in help-search more broadly by isaacs · Pull Request #2574 · npm/cli

isaacs · 2021-01-29T17:55:24Z

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in
random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit
more rarely than it used to.

Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on
the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job.

References

@isaacs

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit more rarely than it used to. Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job. PR-URL: #2574 Credit: @isaacsClose: #2574 Reviewed-by: @nlf

isaacs · 2021-01-29T17:55:24Z

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in
random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit
more rarely than it used to.

Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on
the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job.

References

@isaacs

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit more rarely than it used to. Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job. PR-URL: #2574 Credit: @isaacsClose: #2574 Reviewed-by: @nlf

isaacs · 2021-01-29T17:55:24Z

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in
random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit
more rarely than it used to.

Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on
the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job.

References

@isaacs

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit more rarely than it used to. Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job. PR-URL: #2574 Credit: @isaacsClose: #2574 Reviewed-by: @nlf

isaacs · 2021-01-29T17:55:24Z

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in
random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit
more rarely than it used to.

Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on
the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job.

References

@isaacs

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit more rarely than it used to. Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job. PR-URL: #2574 Credit: @isaacsClose: #2574 Reviewed-by: @nlf

isaacs · 2021-01-29T17:55:24Z

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in
random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit
more rarely than it used to.

Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on
the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job.

References

@isaacs

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit more rarely than it used to. Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job. PR-URL: #2574 Credit: @isaacsClose: #2574 Reviewed-by: @nlf

isaacs · 2021-01-29T17:55:24Z

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in
random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit
more rarely than it used to.

Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on
the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job.

References

@isaacs

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit more rarely than it used to. Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job. PR-URL: #2574 Credit: @isaacsClose: #2574 Reviewed-by: @nlf

isaacs · 2021-01-29T17:55:24Z

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in
random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit
more rarely than it used to.

Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on
the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job.

References

@isaacs

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit more rarely than it used to. Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job. PR-URL: #2574 Credit: @isaacsClose: #2574 Reviewed-by: @nlf

isaacs · 2021-01-29T17:55:24Z

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in
random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit
more rarely than it used to.

Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on
the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job.

References

@isaacs

It turns out that the other stuff in those objects might also be in random order, so this is still triggering CI coverage failures, albeit more rarely than it used to. Just ignore the whole sort function. It's fine, we implicitly assert on the sortedness in the test, so we know that it is doing its job. PR-URL: #2574 Credit: @isaacsClose: #2574 Reviewed-by: @nlf

isaacs requested a review from a team as a code owner January 29, 2021 17:55

nlf approved these changes Jan 29, 2021
View reviewed changes

darcyclarke added Release 7.x work is associated with a specific npm 7 release release: next These items should be addressed in the next release labels Feb 1, 2021

isaacs changed the base branch from latest to release/7.5.1February 1, 2021 19:58

isaacs force-pushed the isaacs/broader-istanbul-ignore-in-help-search branch from e19a8df to 7898f23Compare February 1, 2021 19:58

isaacs merged commit 7898f23 into release/7.5.1Feb 1, 2021

nlf deleted the isaacs/broader-istanbul-ignore-in-help-search branch March 28, 2022 17:00