Add excluding by prefix option #3345
Conversation
Generated by 🚫 Danger |
JohnReeze
force-pushed
the
Exluding-by-prefix-option
branch
from
b66f853
to
62a6619
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3345 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.53% 90.50% -0.04%
==========================================
Files 417 417
Lines 20497 20577 +80
==========================================
+ Hits 18557 18623 +66
- Misses 1940 1954 +14
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
JohnReeze
force-pushed
the
Exluding-by-prefix-option
branch
from
4f9f5f6
to
00fbc7a
Compare
JohnReeze
force-pushed
the
Exluding-by-prefix-option
branch
from
00fbc7a
to
2129733
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3345 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.51% 90.49% -0.03%
==========================================
Files 420 420
Lines 20564 20643 +79
==========================================
+ Hits 18614 18680 +66
- Misses 1950 1963 +13
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
@JohnReeze is this working as you intend it to? I wouldn't expect adding this option to impact existing projects, but OSSCheck reported hundreds of changes in this comment. |
|
@jpsim It should work (and it does as I use it for about a month). And it's strange that OSSCheck reported 430 warnings because I only added optional parameter which by default is not supposed to impact anything |
|
I see you merged master into your branch, let's see if the same thing happens. |
JohnReeze
force-pushed
the
Exluding-by-prefix-option
branch
from
0cb0c86
to
5e32d1f
Compare
JohnReeze
force-pushed
the
Exluding-by-prefix-option
branch
from
5e32d1f
to
9719856
Compare
|
Awesome, looks like OSSCheck got confused previously. Overall, I'm supportive of this change, although I have a small concern of adding diverging behaviors in small ways like this, and the fact that now you'd get different results if you run I'll be pushing some very minor edits to your branch and then will merge when CI is green. |
1. Remove likely unnecessary uses of `parallelMap`/`parallelFlatMap`. The parallel versions of these methods have a significant amount of overhead that doesn't justify their use if the body of the map operation is cheap. 2. Remove local variable that is only used to immediately return the value.
As we discussed here #3325 sometimes current excluding algorithm maybe slower than excluding paths by absolute prefix. So I added option for such cases.
Based on what I've checked it works faster for next scenarios:
use-script-input-files) and excluded directories contain relatively big number of lintable filesBut still it depends on many parameters which can be not be automatically evaluated so
@jpsim looking forward to your review =)