You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 28, 2019. It is now read-only.
Istanbul currently reports that JSON 3 has 13.77% coverage. This is actually correct, since the native stringify and parse implementations are used in Node; however, this metric is also not very useful. I've merged d10/json3@a5e43925b7c8889e0d3d34f52d4082c758b58eff to squelch the Travis failures, but it would be wonderful to investigate how other polyfills measure code coverage.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
ghost
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 20, 2013
I think what we should do for this is to replace Node’s spec-compliant JSON implementation with a faulty one that doesn’t work correctly. We can then use Istanbul accurately to detect JSON3’s code coverage. @kitcambridge What do you think? If you’re fine with it I can experiment with this.
Istanbul currently reports that JSON 3 has 13.77% coverage. This is actually correct, since the native
stringify
andparse
implementations are used in Node; however, this metric is also not very useful. I've merged d10/json3@a5e43925b7c8889e0d3d34f52d4082c758b58eff to squelch the Travis failures, but it would be wonderful to investigate how other polyfills measure code coverage.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: