Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork2.8k
Closed
Assignees
Description
Suggestion
https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/actions/runs/7450497628/job/20269616606
Summary of all failing tests FAIL tests/rules/prefer-readonly.test.ts (7.204 s, 224 MB heap size) ● prefer-readonly › invalid › ...There are a few failing tests. Full output here.
Summary of all failing tests FAIL tests/rules/prefer-readonly.test.ts (7.204 s, 224 MB heap size) ● prefer-readonly › invalid › class Test { private prop: number = 3; test() { const that = {} as this & { _foo: 'bar' }; that._foo = 1; } } assert.strictEqual(received, expected) Expected value to strictly be equal to: " class Test { private readonly prop: number = 3· test() { const that = {} as this & {_foo: 'bar'} that._foo = 1 } } " Received: " class Test { private readonly prop: number = 3;········· constructor() { const that = {} as this & { _foo: 'bar' }; that.prop = 1; } } assert.strictEqual(received, expected) Expected value to strictly be equal to: " class Test { private readonly prop: number· constructor() { const that = {} as this & {_foo: 'bar'} that.prop = 1 } } " Received: " class Test { private readonly prop: number;········· constructor() { const that = {} as this & { _foo: 'bar' }; that.prop = 1; } } " Message: Output is incorrect. Difference: - Expected + Received class Test { - private readonly prop: number - + private readonly prop: number; + constructor() { - const that = {} as this & {_foo: 'bar'} - that.prop = 1 + const that = {} as this & { _foo: 'bar' }; + that.prop = 1; } } 634 | } 635 | else { > 636 | node_assert_1.default.strictEqual(result.output, item.output, 'Output is incorrect.'); | ^ 637 | } 638 | } 639 | else { at RuleTester.strictEqual (../rule-tester/dist/RuleTester.js:636:35) at Object.call (../rule-tester/dist/RuleTester.js:237:119)cc@auvred - the rule was changed in#8169, which at one point did have a passing build but I hadn't noticed it eventually failed on formatting things. No worries on your end, fault on my end for not noticing. I'll fix it up real quick now. We're delayed on releasing anyway from#8220 ->#8221.