edfcore 0.4.466 → 0.4.468

package/dist/constants.d.ts

@@ -109,5 +109,5 @@ export declare const SIGNAL_FIELD_BLOCK_OFFSETS: {
     readonly reserved: 224;
 };
 /** Published package version. Kept in sync with package.json by a test. */
-export declare const VERSION = "0.4.466";
+export declare const VERSION = "0.4.468";
 //# sourceMappingURL=constants.d.ts.map

package/dist/constants.js

@@ -79,5 +79,5 @@ export const SIGNAL_FIELD_BLOCK_OFFSETS = {
     reserved: 224,
 };
 /** Published package version. Kept in sync with package.json by a test. */
-export const VERSION = '0.4.466';
+export const VERSION = '0.4.468';
 //# sourceMappingURL=constants.js.map

package/docs/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -6,6 +6,39 @@ alone does not tell you whether you were affected.
 edfcore is pre-1.0. Patch releases have carried behaviour changes where the old behaviour was a
 defect; those are called out below.
 
+## 0.4.468
+
+- **Added** tests for the half of `redactDiagnostic` that had never been asked: what happens to a
+  diagnostic on a withheld field that carried no `raw` or no `actual`. Both substitutions are
+  conditional, and making either unconditional left the suite green.
+- The consequence is the 0.3.31 failure with its sign flipped. `raw: "[redacted]"` on a diagnostic
+  that never held the bytes makes `formatDiagnostics` print a `raw:` line under it, so a reader
+  auditing a report for what the tool held back finds evidence of patient text where there was
+  none. Output that looks redacted is worse than an obvious leak in both directions.
+- Also pinned: `expected` survives redaction. It is the grammar the field should have followed,
+  not a value read out of the file, and substituting it removes the only part of the line that
+  says what to do. And `actual` alone is enough to clear the message, which matters because a
+  diagnostic with no `raw` has no other spelling of the value to substitute by.
+- The diagnostics are written out rather than provoked from a file: `formatDiagnostics` is public
+  and takes any `EdfDiagnostic[]`, every parser-built identification diagnostic happens to carry
+  both fields, and the contract being pinned is the function's rather than one file's.
+
+## 0.4.467
+
+- **Added** the test for the third arm of `DIGITAL_RANGE_EXCEEDS_FORMAT`'s advice clause, added in
+  0.3.120 and never run. Deleting it left every case in the suite green.
+- The diagnostic fires when a declared digital range does not fit the format's sample width, and
+  its last sentence tells the reader what to expect. 0.3.72 split the annotations case out;
+  0.3.120 added the case where a DATA signal gets no scale either, because the check runs before
+  `buildScale` and never asked whether one would exist. Both tested arms were covered; the one in
+  the middle was not.
+- The two fixtures are the two commonest ways a writer stamps BDF bounds into an EDF header —
+  swapping the pair, and writing one value twice — which leave `INVERTED_DIGITAL_RANGE` and
+  `DEGENERATE_DIGITAL_RANGE` behind and no gain at all. Both premises are asserted before the
+  wording is: the range really is outside 16 bits, and `signal.scale` really is `undefined`.
+- The assertions exclude the other two arms by name as well as checking their own, so a clause
+  that collapsed back to either of them fails here rather than passing on a shared phrase.
+
 ## 0.4.466
 
 - **Added** tests for `buildSegmentation` over a sparse `ArrayLike`, which is what its signature

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "edfcore",
-  "version": "0.4.466",
+  "version": "0.4.468",
   "description": "Modern, typed, zero-dependency reader for EDF, EDF+, BDF and BDF+ biosignal files. Works in browsers and Node with true random access.",
   "keywords": [
     "edf",

package/src/constants.ts

@@ -93,4 +93,4 @@ export const SIGNAL_FIELD_BLOCK_OFFSETS = {
 } as const;
 
 /** Published package version. Kept in sync with package.json by a test. */
-export const VERSION = '0.4.466';
+export const VERSION = '0.4.468';