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

fix: remove 'use strict'; from systemjs when strict=false #3101

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Sep 8, 2019

Conversation

askbeka
Copy link
Contributor

@askbeka askbeka commented Sep 7, 2019

This PR contains:

  • bugfix
  • feature
  • refactor
  • documentation
  • other

Are tests included?

  • yes (bugfixes and features will not be merged without tests)
  • no

Breaking Changes?

  • yes (breaking changes will not be merged unless absolutely necessary)
  • no

List any relevant issue numbers:
#3100

Description

Removes 'use strict'; from Systemjs modules whenoutput.strict = false

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 7, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #3101 into master will increase coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3101      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.22%   89.27%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         165      165              
  Lines        5725     5726       +1     
  Branches     1738     1739       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits         5108     5112       +4     
  Misses        380      380              
+ Partials      237      234       -3
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/finalisers/system.ts 96.47% <100%> (+0.04%) ⬆️
src/finalisers/umd.ts 94.91% <0%> (+1.69%) ⬆️
src/finalisers/cjs.ts 97.43% <0%> (+2.56%) ⬆️
src/finalisers/amd.ts 97.14% <0%> (+2.85%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 8dceaf6...0cc7ab2. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@lukastaegert lukastaegert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Very nice, also the test case and the positive coverage diff 😉!

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants