Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

fix: optimistic parse #541

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 10, 2023
Merged

fix: optimistic parse #541

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
10 changes: 0 additions & 10 deletions functions/parse.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,11 +1,6 @@
const { MAX_LENGTH } = require('../internal/constants')
const { re, t } = require('../internal/re')
const SemVer = require('../classes/semver')

const parseOptions = require('../internal/parse-options')
const parse = (version, options) => {
options = parseOptions(options)

if (version instanceof SemVer) {
return version
}
Expand All @@ -18,11 +13,6 @@ const parse = (version, options) => {
return null
}

const r = options.loose ? re[t.LOOSE] : re[t.FULL]
if (!r.test(version)) {
return null
}

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is what the SemVer constructor is doing. As you can see it's not even consistent with this code in that SemVer trim()s the version.

    const m = version.trim().match(options.loose ? re[t.LOOSE] : re[t.FULL])

    if (!m) {
      throw new TypeError(`Invalid Version: ${version}`)
    }

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yep, that's why I removed it, the idea in that test is just to fail-fast.

So, can we consider that a bug or we could try to push this change?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's evidence in favor of this change. We don't need to optimize for bad semver here, and this PR is also a code cleanup and consistency issue.

try {
return new SemVer(version, options)
} catch (er) {
Expand Down