Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

tools: avoid using process.cwd in tools/lint-js #17121

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

tniessen
Copy link
Member

@tniessen tniessen commented Nov 18, 2017

The first occurrence of path.join() can be replaced with path.resolve(). The second occurrence should be unnecessary as ESLint will resolve the path internally, and the old check probably did not work as intended anyway.

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-linter/13675/

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

tools

The first occurrence of path.join() can easily be replaced with
path.resolve().
The second occurrence should be unnecessary as ESLint will resolve the
path internally, and the old check probably did not work as intended
anyway.
@tniessen tniessen requested a review from mscdex November 18, 2017 18:25
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the tools Issues and PRs related to the tools directory. label Nov 18, 2017
@tniessen tniessen added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Nov 19, 2017
@addaleax
Copy link
Member

@tniessen Would you mind kicking off CI when you add that label? :)

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/14149/

@tniessen
Copy link
Member Author

@addaleax I kicked off CI before creating the PR, the link is in the description. Unless, of course, node-test-linter is not enough (I assumed it is, but I could be wrong).

@addaleax
Copy link
Member

@tniessen Ah – Yeah, I didn’t see that because it didn’t show up in the github display here, but that makes sense if you used node-test-commit directly 👍

@tniessen
Copy link
Member Author

Landed in f82f5a4.

@tniessen tniessen closed this Nov 21, 2017
tniessen added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 21, 2017
The first occurrence of path.join() can easily be replaced with
path.resolve().
The second occurrence should be unnecessary as ESLint will resolve the
path internally, and the old check probably did not work as intended
anyway.

PR-URL: #17121
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
@addaleax addaleax removed the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Nov 28, 2017
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 12, 2017
The first occurrence of path.join() can easily be replaced with
path.resolve().
The second occurrence should be unnecessary as ESLint will resolve the
path internally, and the old check probably did not work as intended
anyway.

PR-URL: #17121
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Dec 12, 2017
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 19, 2017
The first occurrence of path.join() can easily be replaced with
path.resolve().
The second occurrence should be unnecessary as ESLint will resolve the
path internally, and the old check probably did not work as intended
anyway.

PR-URL: #17121
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
gibfahn pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 19, 2017
The first occurrence of path.join() can easily be replaced with
path.resolve().
The second occurrence should be unnecessary as ESLint will resolve the
path internally, and the old check probably did not work as intended
anyway.

PR-URL: #17121
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
@gibfahn gibfahn mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2017
gibfahn pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 20, 2017
The first occurrence of path.join() can easily be replaced with
path.resolve().
The second occurrence should be unnecessary as ESLint will resolve the
path internally, and the old check probably did not work as intended
anyway.

PR-URL: #17121
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
@gibfahn gibfahn mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2017
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
tools Issues and PRs related to the tools directory.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants