Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

 Sign up
Appearance settings

fix(website): update hash value if problem occurs due to ts version error#11292

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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Open
developer-bandi wants to merge5 commits intotypescript-eslint:main
base:main
Choose a base branch
Loading
fromdeveloper-bandi:website/tsversion-error

Conversation

@developer-bandi
Copy link
Contributor

PR Checklist

Overview

If an error occurs due to the ts version, hash's ts is modified to load the latest version.

@typescript-eslint
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the PR,@developer-bandi!

typescript-eslint is a 100% community driven project, and we are incredibly grateful that you are contributing to that community.

The core maintainers work on this in their personal time, so please understand that it may not be possible for them to review your work immediately.

Thanks again!

🙏Please, if you or your company is finding typescript-eslint valuable, help us sustain the project by sponsoring it transparently onhttps://opencollective.com/typescript-eslint.

@netlify
Copy link

netlifybot commentedJun 10, 2025•
edited
Loading

✅ Deploy Preview fortypescript-eslint ready!

NameLink
🔨 Latest commit34bedfa
🔍 Latest deploy loghttps://app.netlify.com/projects/typescript-eslint/deploys/68612c639bfede0008f86f1c
😎 Deploy Previewhttps://deploy-preview-11292--typescript-eslint.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
Lighthouse
Lighthouse		1 paths audited
Performance: 88 (🔴 down 7 from production)
Accessibility: 100 (no change from production)
Best Practices: 100 (no change from production)
SEO: 98 (🔴 down 2 from production)
PWA: 80 (no change from production)
View the detailed breakdown and full score reports

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to yourNetlify project configuration.

@developer-bandideveloper-bandi changed the titlefix(website): acquired types are shown in the editor but not reflected in lintingfix(website): update hash value if problem occurs due to ts version errorJun 10, 2025
@nx-cloud
Copy link

nx-cloudbot commentedJun 10, 2025•
edited
Loading

View yourCI Pipeline Execution ↗ for commit95ba0c0.

CommandStatusDurationResult
nx run-many -t typecheck✅ Succeeded2m 14sView ↗
nx run-many -t lint✅ Succeeded13sView ↗
nx test eslint-plugin-internal --coverage=false✅ Succeeded<1sView ↗
nx test typescript-estree --coverage=false✅ Succeeded<1sView ↗
nx run generate-configs✅ Succeeded7sView ↗
nx run types:build✅ Succeeded1sView ↗
nx run integration-tests:test✅ Succeeded<1sView ↗
nx test eslint-plugin --coverage=false✅ Succeeded<1sView ↗
Additional runs (27)✅ Succeeded...View ↗

☁️Nx Cloud last updated this comment at2025-06-10 14:02:09 UTC

@codecov
Copy link

codecovbot commentedJun 10, 2025•
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.85%. Comparing base (1e0ba62) to head (95ba0c0).
⚠️ Report is 186 commits behind head on main.

⚠️Current head95ba0c0 differs from pull request most recent head34bedfa

Pleaseupload reports for the commit34bedfa to get more accurate results.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@##             main   #11292      +/-   ##==========================================- Coverage   90.91%   90.85%   -0.06%==========================================  Files         501      501                Lines       50869    50901      +32       Branches     8382     8383       +1     ==========================================  Hits        46248    46248- Misses       4606     4638      +32  Partials       15       15
FlagCoverage Δ
unittest90.85% <ø> (-0.06%)⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown.Click here to find out more.
see 3 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Copy link
Member

@JoshuaKGoldbergJoshuaKGoldberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A good start, thanks for getting it started! I left some refactor changes to make the code a bit more precise.

@JoshuaKGoldbergJoshuaKGoldberg added the awaiting responseIssues waiting for a reply from the OP or another party labelJun 16, 2025
@github-actionsgithub-actionsbot removed the awaiting responseIssues waiting for a reply from the OP or another party labelJun 29, 2025
Copy link
Member

@JoshuaKGoldbergJoshuaKGoldberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry for taking so long to review this! To be honest, I've been dreading this PR because the async state checking logic is so intricate 😅. And the fact that it has a non-trivial diff with multiple nested.then()s is not helping.

Could you please:

  1. Streamline the changes (see inline comment)
  2. Resolve merge conflicts introduced by your other PR,#10991

Thanks!

Comment on lines +71 to +73
.then(()=>{
sandboxSingleton(props.ts)
.then(async({ lintUtils, main, sandboxFactory})=>{

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

[Refactor] The code already has anasync inside a.then(() => {. Could you please refactor the new code so that it keeps to theasync/await pattern where possible? That'll reduce the noise from this diff. Which is non-trivial and making it hard to review.

@JoshuaKGoldbergJoshuaKGoldberg added the awaiting responseIssues waiting for a reply from the OP or another party labelSep 29, 2025
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@JoshuaKGoldbergJoshuaKGoldbergJoshuaKGoldberg requested changes

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

awaiting responseIssues waiting for a reply from the OP or another party

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug: playground in a weird state when using unsupported TS version

2 participants

@developer-bandi@JoshuaKGoldberg
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp