Current coverage is 84.78%

Merging #3183 into master will decrease coverage by -0.27% as of b2ae74b

@@            master   #3183   diff @@
======================================
  Files          215     215       
  Stmts        15619   15633    +14
  Branches      3336    3341     +5
  Methods          0       0       
======================================
- Hit          13284   13254    -30
- Partial        683     732    +49
+ Missed        1652    1647     -5

Review entire Coverage Diff as of b2ae74b

Powered by Codecov. Updated on successful CI builds.

looks good to me

@sebmck can you take a look?

Any chance on getting this in? I see it's conflicting now, glad to rebase if there is interest in this PR.

+1 to get it fixed, please.

The problem described in T6851 (https://phabricator.babeljs.io/T6851) makes my debugging almost impossible.

I think it's clear from some of the source map issues that the tests aren't exhaustive enough to catch a lot of these problems. These changes look good to me but I'm not confident giving this a 👍 without some additional tests.

@kittens is there a baseline that you'd like to see in order to get this in? I'm all for expanded test coverage for source maps, but I only have so much time to focus on open source work versus trying to ship and need to balance my time.

@kittens @amasad @thejameskyle a month later I'm still having to guess where my tests are failing due to this and this is causing a fair amount of pain for me. I am glad to make changes needed to get this in but it's a bit disheartening that we can't get this issue resolved or at least rejected if it won't be accepted. I had invested the time to fix this issue (along with many other open source project issues that directly impact me) in an attempt to not treat the maintainers as a commodity and in a selfish attempt to fix my own problems but now it's just leading to frustration as no one with the keys is willing to pull the trigger or provide feedback on what needs to be done to move forward.

I'm sorry for the delay, it's a big change and apparently none of us are that comfortable with that part of the codebase to be able to accept this with confidence. I think we left the conversation around adding more tests. Is this something you are able to do?

@kittens did you have suggestions as to what additional tests you'd like to be added?

Extremely sorry for the delay @kpdecker. We're just starting to get new contributors ramped up but there's still large parts of the codebase that only I understand. After reviewing the changes this looks good. I've manually merged as there was a conflict due to some generator print stack work by @amasad. Sorry for not being very responsive.

Thanks, hopefully my post from 3am my time wasn't too whiny. As always glad to help out however I can. If I get some time away from the race to release our v1 I'll see if I can get some broader source-map test coverage outside of this one case.