fix(migration): Ignore non-renamed modules #2309
Merged
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
+ add a test for this.
maribethb
approved these changes
Apr 4, 2024
gonfunko
pushed a commit
to gonfunko/blockly-samples
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 15, 2024
* fix(migration): Ignore non-renamed modules + add a test for this. * chore(migration): Remove log statement
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The basics
The details
Resolves
Fixes #2171.
Proposed Changes
Don't create a renaming entry for modules that haven't been renamed.
Add an entry to the test renamings that replicates the situation describe in #2171, and which causes multiple test failures without the aforementioned fix.
Additional Information
We should probably do a prefix sort on
.renamings_(or even just sort by length descending), so that more specific entries precede less-specific ones, but after thinking quite hard about the possible consequences of this I wasn't 100% sure that this wouldn't have unforeseen consequences due to the (arguably excessive) complexity of how renamings are specified.Since the renaming file (and therefore script) is due for a rethink anyway—since it is keyed on
goog.moduleIDs that no longer actually exist in the Blockly sourcecode—I think doing the simplest possible thing for now is probably the best approach.