Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## next #5657 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 83.57% 83.65% +0.07%
==========================================
Files 11 11
Lines 1924 1939 +15
Branches 707 718 +11
==========================================
+ Hits 1608 1622 +14
- Misses 283 284 +1
Partials 33 33 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
@bjohansebas looks good for me to using glob and globSync |
| ? globSync(item, { cwd: watchOptions.cwd, absolute: true }) | ||
| : item, | ||
| ); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really need it? Can you provide cases where we broken without it?
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| describe("should work with ignored option using glob array", () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@alexander-akait here’s the test for the ignore glob, if that’s what you meant in https://github.com/webpack/webpack-dev-server/pull/5657/changes#r3027815531
alexander-akait
left a comment
alexander-akait
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, do we need to add something in migration guide? Feel free to merge
|
Okay, it looks like there’s an issue with Windows. I’ll check what’s going on later |
2 participants
Summary
Unlike #5374, which tries to keep native glob support in dev-server to maintain compatibility, this one doesn’t, instead, it simply removes it and shows how to replicate it. That’s also what rspack did in its dev-server, and I don’t think we should be doing external magic just to preserve that support.
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Did you add tests for your changes?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
If relevant, what needs to be documented once your changes are merged or what have you already documented?
Use of AI