On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 05:34, Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >> Interesting, I'll take note. I'm still personally not keen on supporting
> >> CommonJS-only patterns when we are purportedly trying to show diffs for
> >> JavaScript, but if we think this fits the style, I'm happy to oblige.
> >
> > The question is, with these patterns that are aware of CommonJS
> > convention, would your bog-standard-and-boring vanilla JS code be
> > detected incorrectly? Becoming aware of popular conventions without
> > hurting others would be a good thing.
> >
> > And the "popular conventions" does not have to be limited to
> > CommonJS/Node.
>
> From the perspective of "'exports' is a special name", yes, we could
> detect vanilla JS code 'incorrectly' because, in vanilla JS, the names
> 'exports' or 'module.exports' are not special. So perhaps, one could
> imagine a browser-side script that deals with "imports" and "exports" as
> part of their business:
>
> const exports = {
> quantity: 1,
> type: 'boxes',
> };
> exports.getQuantity = () => {
> foo();
> };
>
> This diff driver would mistakenly detect `exports.getQuantity = () =>
> {`.
>
> Although, the more I think about it, the spirit of this patch seems to
> be "we want to show headers whenever we think we are in a function", so
> we don't actually need to treat 'exports' or 'module.exports' specially
> at all, e.g. this case should also pass our diff driver tests:
>
> const foo = {};
> foo.RIGHT = () => {
>
> ChangeMe();
> };
>
> and if we do this, we will correctly handle 'exports' and
> 'module.exports' anyway by virtue of them being plain old JS objects.
The spirit of this patch is to show headers when we are in the
function body(which has a large code block). Because this can help
users understand the context.
And prevent mismatch non-related function. ex:
function WRONG() {
// ...
}
const foo = {};
foo.RIGHT = () => {
ChangeMe();
};
if we don't match "foo.RIGHT = () => {". It may match the "function
WRONG() {". This would be very misleading.
So the v3 patch. I do not treat `exports` as a special keyword. And
can match the code like "foo.RIGHT = () => {".
The regex would be
"((module\\.)?[$_[:alpha:]][$_[:alnum:]]*\\.[$_[:alpha:]][$_[:alnum:]]*[\t
]*=[\t ]*(\\(.*\\)|[$_[:alpha:]][$_[:alnum:]]*)[\t ]*=>.*)"
