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

Incorrect module ID in case of certain URL patterns #40

Closed
3 tasks
brodycj opened this issue Aug 10, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed
3 tasks

Incorrect module ID in case of certain URL patterns #40

brodycj opened this issue Aug 10, 2018 · 3 comments
Labels

Comments

@brodycj
Copy link

brodycj commented Aug 10, 2018

From review of PR #38 (1.3.1 patch release updates on 1.3.x branch) and unit testing in WIP PR #39 we discovered that the code will use incorrect module ID in case of certain URL patterns on 1.3.1. It is not yet certain whether or not this would be an issue on master.

Sample URLs where the incorrect module ID is observed in the unit tests in WIP PR #39:

  • https://scm.git.service.io/user/my-repo.git
  • git://scm.git.service.io/user/my-repo.git
  • https://scm.service.io/user/my-repo-other-url where npm indicates that it installed my-repo@2.0.0
  • https://scm.service.io/user/my-repo#old-tag
  • git://scm.service.io/user/my-repo#old-tag

Unfortunately the unit tests in WIP PR #39 will not work on master due to changes in the code.

TODO:

  • add unit testing to cover this behavior in master
  • resolve on master if needed
  • determine whether or not there is any need to resolve this issue on 1.3.x, before next major release is published from the changes in master
@brodycj brodycj added the bug label Aug 10, 2018
@raphinesse
Copy link
Contributor

raphinesse commented Aug 10, 2018

I do not understand the fuss being made about this non-issue! 😫

The old implementation was broken in so many ways that this bug is quite a joke. That's why I rewrote almost the whole module. If there's bugs in the new implementation, then certainly not this one that's very specific to the old implementation.

Why don't we just focus on moving forward instead of discussing in four different issues/PRs how we should test and patch broken code that has already been completely removed from master?

IMHO this is a wontfix.

@dpogue
Copy link
Member

dpogue commented Aug 10, 2018

I agree, every attempted fix to this is going to cause other weird bugs to surface. Let's just leave it as-is, where we know what's broken, and focus on moving forward.

@brodycj
Copy link
Author

brodycj commented Aug 14, 2018

Closing then. I will probably want to add some more module ID testing in the master branch, or at least raise a PR for consideration, sometime later.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants