fix: make Runner's concatAll safer#339
Open
AndersDJohnson wants to merge 1 commit intofacebook:mainfrom
Open
Conversation
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 join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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 have noticed that in some cases the
concatAllfunction inRunner.jsresults in errors. Looks like the function assumes a fully populated nested array, whereas the code that generates the nested array with which this function is called can actually result inundefinednested items by resolving the promise with nothing here:jscodeshift/src/Runner.js
Line 142 in d63aa84
If it is intentional to throw an error in this case rather than proceeding, I would at least prefer if such errors were handled more gracefully, as I saw no indication as to the root cause in the logs or stack trace when this occurred.
Alternatively, we could change the
resolve()toresolve([]), as is done below it. It looks like this was attempted in #334.Let me know if we should add unit tests to cover this possibility and prove this works - I just wanted to raise a minimal PR to clearly demonstrate the change in functionality to start.