Take top-level config source into consideration when processing nested env/overrides.#8493
Merged
loganfsmyth merged 1 commit intobabel:masterfrom Aug 20, 2018
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
|
Build successful! You can test your changes in the REPL here: https://babeljs.io/repl/build/8846/ |
1 similar comment
Collaborator
|
Build successful! You can test your changes in the REPL here: https://babeljs.io/repl/build/8846/ |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
I realized we had a small hole in option validation. Because we were using the config "type" field for both the type of the overall config, e.g. babelrc vs programmatic vs presets, and also
envandoverrides, it was possible for options to slip through that aren't supposed to be allowed, if they were inside of anenvoroverridessubconfig.For example, presets don't allow
ignoreandonlyandextends, but a preset could technically have doneto get an
ignoreinto the config anyway, by nesting it insideenv.This PR also improves the overall config validation logic by including more information when errors occur during validation, for example the error message for the above config will specifically call out
.env["test"].ignoreinstead off just saying.ignorelike it would have before.