Skip to content
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

fixes #74, introduces LR0004 WARNING diagnostic on unused facts (not … #82

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bkaptijn
Copy link
Contributor

…referenced)

@bkaptijn bkaptijn requested a review from pimotte December 18, 2019 12:21
@codecov-io
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #82 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master      #82   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.08%   96.08%           
=======================================
  Files           3        3           
  Lines         511      511           
=======================================
  Hits          491      491           
  Misses         20       20
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/modelValidator.js 94.47% <100%> (+0.32%) ⬆️
src/util.js 96.29% <0%> (-0.93%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6fa2e27...5c0df84. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@pimotte pimotte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, just one small nitpick:)

Can you also bump the patch version of the package before merging? (Also needs a back-merge from master due to merge conflicts.)

const path = jsonc.getNodePath(node)
return [{
code: 'LR0004',
message: 'Unused fact: ' + fact.fact,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This kind of duplicates the information in the 'source' attribute. In the end in vscode this would show as something like: "Unused fact [unusedfact] ([unusedfact])", so I would remove the fact.fact in the message, and just have 'Unused fact'

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants