docs: record the refilled newcomer backlog - #178
Merged
Conversation
Records #173 to #177 and the reasoning behind them. With positive rule coverage finished, more "cover rule X" issues would be busywork, so the backlog was refilled against a measured gap: only 3 of 21 scenarios are negative controls, while every correctness fix this project has shipped was a false positive or a spec mismatch. Also updates the station ID allocation, where 022, 023 and 024 are now reserved and the next free number is 025. Notes that #177 is deliberately not a good-first-issue, since the DOM environment and component-testing approach are maintainer decisions, and that the traces in the three scenario issues were run against the detection engine before publishing.
sepehr-safari
added
type:docs
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Records #173 to #177 in the living document, along with why those five and not
five more of what came before.
The reasoning worth keeping
Positive rule coverage is finished, so more "cover rule X" issues would be
busywork. The measured gap is the other direction: only 3 of the 21 scenarios are
negative controls, while every correctness fix this project has shipped was a false
positive or a spec mismatch (#127, #128, #155, #154, #156). #155 alone found the
transition rule flagging 22 transitions the section 4.9 table permits, with nothing
in the corpus to notice. #173 to #175 are that guard.
Recorded
it matters, plus their reserved station IDs.
CONTRIBUTING.md, but@vitest/coverage-v8is not a dependency, so the target has never been checked.reactmodule, and the explicit reason it is not a good-first-issue.022,023and024reserved, next free is025.the specs are known-good rather than plausible.
Verification
Every claim in the diff was checked against the tree and GitHub rather than written
from memory: the three negative-control filenames, registry length 21, the
good-first-issue count of 6, #177's labels,
025being unused, the react module at388 lines, and
coverage-v8being absent frompackage.json.Confirmed the edits did not disturb the automation that parses this file: the script
still no-ops at
0.4.7without duplicating the log entry, and its 9 unit testspass.
pnpm format:checkpasses.Documentation only, no changeset.