Add very error-ful checkJS test for chrome devtools js#19992
Merged
weswigham merged 1 commit intoNov 16, 2017
Conversation
mhegazy
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2017
Contributor
mhegazy
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That is a lot of jsdoc parse errors ..
Member
Author
|
@mhegazy Indeed. I also found #20000 using |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This should help us get some
checkJscoverage on a project that has some seriously complete jsdoc (as it's validated under closure compiler's strictest mode).On that note, this depends on #19980 (since it triggers it), and contains errors which are examples of #19990, #19988, #19987, #19986, #19985, #19983, #19982, and #19981. Because those are all parse errors (we probably shouldn't let jsdoc parse errors block semantic analysis), we don't even actually know any type errors that may or may not be correct yet.