infra(unicorn): better-regex #2487
Draft
Conversation
This file contains 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
ST-DDT
added
p: 1-normal
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## next #2487 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 99.58% 99.58% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 2787 2787
Lines 249376 249377 +1
Branches 1084 1084
==========================================
- Hits 248333 248330 -3
- Misses 1015 1019 +4
Partials 28 28
|
ST-DDT
commented
Oct 20, 2023
| @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ describe('internet', () => { | |||
| const [prefix, suffix] = email.split('@'); | |||
|
|
|||
| expect(prefix).toMatch( | |||
| /^Mike((\d{1,2})|([.!#$%&'*+-/=?^_`{|}~]Smith\d{1,2})|([.!#$%&'*+-/=?^_`{|}~]Smith))/ | |||
| /^Mike((\d{1,2})|([!#$%&'*+-/=?^_`{|}~]Smith\d{1,2})|([!#$%&'*+-/=?^_`{|}~]Smith))/ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For those of you that wonder like me where the . went:
+-/ === + - / === +, -, ., /
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that is SUPER confusing. A human reading this would never think that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TBH, this regex pattern in general is super confusing. I just looked at it and noped out immediately.
| @@ -98,21 +98,21 @@ describe('color', () => { | |||
| describe(`rgb({ format: 'css' })`, () => { | |||
| it('should return a random rgb color in css format', () => { | |||
| const color = faker.color.rgb({ format: 'css' }); | |||
| expect(color).match(/^(rgb\([0-9]{1,3}, [0-9]{1,3}, [0-9]{1,3}\))$/); | |||
| expect(color).match(/^rgb\((?:\d{1,3}, ){2}\d{1,3}\)$/); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this seems harder to read than the original
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That means that the regex in general is too complex for that use case IMO. Splitting this one statement into multiple expect statements would be welcome:
const color = faker.color.rgb({ format: 'css' });
expect(color.startsWith('rgb')).toBe(true);
expect(color).toContain('(');
expect(color.endsWith(')')).toBe(true);
const values = color.substring(4, color.length - 1).split(',');
expect(values).toHaveLength(3);
for(const value of values) {
const numeric = Number.parseInt(value, 10);
expect(numeric).not.toBe(NaN);
expect(numeric).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(0);
expect(numeric).toBeLessThanOrEqual(255);
}| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| describe(`rgb({ format: 'binary' })`, () => { | ||
| it('should return a random rgb color in binary format', () => { | ||
| const color = faker.color.rgb({ format: 'binary' }); | ||
| expect(color).match(/^([01]{8} [01]{8} [01]{8})$/); | ||
| expect(color).match(/^(?:[01]{8} ){2}[01]{8}$/); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this seems harder to read than the original
|
Team Decision
|
ST-DDT
added
s: on hold
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Ref: #2439
Enables the
unicorn/better-regexlint rule.