-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 391
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
Replace lodash methods #2454
Merged
Merged
Replace lodash methods #2454
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
cce0470
refactor: replace get and invert lodash methods
roggervalf 89b4da2
refactor: replace toString
roggervalf abeb870
chore: remove lodash dependency
roggervalf 01c4f80
refactor: extract invertObject util method
roggervalf 5fb7b67
chore: remove unneded message change in error object
roggervalf 039f554
chore: set error type as any in uncaughtException
roggervalf 50c7297
Merge branch 'master' into replace-lodash-methods
roggervalf 6804232
chore: fix merge conflicts
roggervalf 5a3408e
refactor: add toString util method
roggervalf 8245849
chore: fix merge conflicts
roggervalf File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This makes me a bit nervous, not sure if this is the correct thing to do. So if the error does not include .message we assume it is not an error object, but more likely just a string, and thus we create a new error here, which will create also an error stack. If we do not do this, then we call errorToJSON with a string , will this yield this a correct "value"? This uncaughException is emitted in userland code, out of our control... can we track who did add this code to see if we can understand the original intend?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can see that this change was added last year with worker threads support 0820985#diff-dba50fb04784a53f9826c6cb96929de2d71329d82f1d97418a13fc54a955f8d5R37-R39
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that in order not to create a regression (even though no test is testing this feature), we should implement our own toString then if we want to get rid of lodash.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ah ok, you did already 👍