Skip to content

test(third-party): parse js defined by // @filename#17922

Merged
nicolo-ribaudo merged 4 commits into
babel:mainfrom
JLHwung:ts-parser-test-improvement
Apr 17, 2026
Merged

test(third-party): parse js defined by // @filename#17922
nicolo-ribaudo merged 4 commits into
babel:mainfrom
JLHwung:ts-parser-test-improvement

Conversation

@JLHwung

@JLHwung JLHwung commented Apr 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
Q                       A
Fixed Issues? ts parser test runner does not parse JS files implied by //@filename *.js
Patch: Bug Fix?
Major: Breaking Change?
Minor: New Feature?
Tests Added + Pass? Yes
Documentation PR Link
Any Dependency Changes?
License MIT

In this PR we improve the ts parser test runner such that it will parse the js files defined by the @filename comment. The motivation here is to reduce the false negative results as TS could throw errors from the js files.

This PR includes commits from #17904.

@babel-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Build successful! You can test your changes in the REPL here: https://babeljs.io/repl/build/61279

@pkg-pr-new

pkg-pr-new Bot commented Apr 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Open in StackBlitz

commit: b85c7ef

@nicolo-ribaudo nicolo-ribaudo left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice changes to the allowlist

@nicolo-ribaudo nicolo-ribaudo merged commit 5951535 into babel:main Apr 17, 2026
56 checks passed
@nicolo-ribaudo nicolo-ribaudo deleted the ts-parser-test-improvement branch April 17, 2026 10:16
@nicolo-ribaudo

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Ughh I just noticed that I accidentally merged this, sorry 😅

The code looked good, and I had also gone through #17904

@JLHwung

JLHwung commented Apr 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Ughh I just noticed that I accidentally merged this, sorry 😅

The code looked good, and I had also gone through #17904

No worry, killing two PRs with one merge button is definitely not bad. I will close #17904 then.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants