Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
dependencies
| const { isBrowser, descendantKeys, joinPath } = require('./walkingUtils'); | ||
| const query = require('./query'); | ||
|
|
||
| function* lowLevelWalk(data = bcd, path, depth = Infinity) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why two walking generators? walk() wraps lowLevelWalk() but only yields __compat: { … } objects. lowLevelWalk() is the basis for other sorts of interesting walks, such as walking non-__compat namespaces or walking browsers, which have not been implemented yet.
| }); | ||
| it('visits every point in the tree', function () { | ||
| const paths = Array.from(lowLevelWalk()).map(step => step.path); | ||
| assert.ok(paths.length > 13000); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Strictly speaking, this doesn't really test this function—just that its output is reasonable—but I feel like the tests on walk() do the heavy lifting here.
| ); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should yield every feature by default', function () { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test (and the similar test of visit) are rather slow (>300ms and >50ms on my machine), which Mocha highlights. I think it's mostly the overhead of Mocha, but we could restrict this to some subtree if we want to speed things up.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could also have a unchanging set of BCD-like JSON files for testing only, which could exercise things that are uncommon in BCD or likely to change over time. That would probably be blazing fast to test with.
One might still have one or two smoke tests involving the real data.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Testing with a unchanging set will be a lot easier now that we've got the consistent data parameter.
Is this something I should come up with as part of this PR?
foolip
left a comment
foolip
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've tried using walk('api') to answer a quick question I had with success.
github-actions
bot
added
the
docs
|
Last week, I talked with Florian and he suggested that I document the experimental status somewhere. I've done that by adding a README file to the Thank you for the excellent reviewing here, @foolip! |
2 participants
This PR adds some experimental utilities for traversing compat data. These are not intended to be included in the package and won't (at least for now) constitute a public API.
It's kinda big and it's got some rough edges. I'll do a self-review to highlight a few things.
Related to #6585
Originally from: https://github.com/ddbeck/bcd-utils