supercov 0.0.43 → 0.0.44

package/analyzers/typescript/dist/pragmas.js

@@ -29,7 +29,18 @@ export function collectPragmas(compiler, files, relativeFile, sites) {
                 const raw = sf.text.slice(range.pos, range.end);
                 if (!/^\/\/\s*observes:/.test(raw) || comments.has(key(sf, range.pos)))
                     continue;
-                const parsed = /^\/\/\s*observes:\s*(\S+?)#(\S+)(?:\s+(.+?))?\s*$/.exec(raw);
+                const parts = raw.split(/;\s*check\s+/);
+                const check = parts.length === 2 && parts[1].trim() === "missing call"
+                    ? "missing-call"
+                    : parts.length === 2 && parts[1].trim() === "count"
+                        ? "count"
+                        : parts.length === 2 && parts[1].trim() === "value"
+                            ? "value"
+                            : parts.length === 2 && parts[1].trim() === "completion"
+                                ? "completion"
+                                : undefined;
+                const checkIssue = parts.length > 1 && !check ? "unsupported-check-recipe" : undefined;
+                const parsed = /^\/\/\s*observes:\s*(\S+?)#(\S+)(?:\s+(.+?))?\s*$/.exec(parts[0]);
                 const suffix = parsed?.[3]?.split(/(?:^|\s+)via\s+/);
                 const target = parsed
                     ? {
@@ -44,28 +55,42 @@ export function collectPragmas(compiler, files, relativeFile, sites) {
                     target.file
                         .split("/")
                         .every((part) => part && part !== "." && part !== "..");
-                const candidates = validPath
-                    ? sites
-                        .filter((s) => s.file === target.file &&
+                const matchingSites = validPath
+                    ? sites.filter((s) => s.file === target.file &&
+                        // The recipe selects the emission, not a containing callback-return site.
+                        (!check ||
+                            (check === "missing-call"
+                                ? s.category === "log"
+                                : check === "completion"
+                                    ? s.category === "return" || s.category === "throw"
+                                    : s.kind === "decision" || s.category === "return")) &&
                         (s.owner === target.function || s.fn === target.function) &&
                         (!target.snippet || s.text.includes(target.snippet)))
-                        .map((s) => s.id)
                     : [];
+                // An exact whole-site selector is more specific than a containing return
+                // whose display text happens to include that expression. Equal sibling
+                // sites remain ambiguous. This only selects a node; it proves no behavior.
+                const exact = check && target?.snippet
+                    ? matchingSites.filter((s) => s.text.trim() === target.snippet.trim())
+                    : [];
+                const candidates = (exact.length ? exact : matchingSites).map((s) => s.id);
                 comments.set(key(sf, range.pos), {
                     id: location(sf, range.pos),
                     where: location(sf, range.pos),
                     raw,
                     target,
+                    ...(check ? { check } : {}),
                     candidateSites: candidates,
-                    issue: !target
-                        ? "invalid-syntax"
-                        : !validPath
-                            ? "invalid-target-path"
-                            : !candidates.length
-                                ? "target-not-in-inventory"
-                                : candidates.length > 1
-                                    ? "ambiguous-target"
-                                    : undefined,
+                    issue: checkIssue ??
+                        (!target
+                            ? "invalid-syntax"
+                            : !validPath
+                                ? "invalid-target-path"
+                                : !candidates.length
+                                    ? "target-not-in-inventory"
+                                    : candidates.length > 1
+                                        ? "ambiguous-target"
+                                        : undefined),
                     attachments: [],
                 });
             }
@@ -78,7 +103,17 @@ export function collectPragmas(compiler, files, relativeFile, sites) {
         visit(sf);
     }
     return {
-        register(node, method, testKey, inert) {
+        hasHint(node) {
+            let statement = node;
+            while (statement.parent && !compiler.isStatement(statement))
+                statement = statement.parent;
+            if (!compiler.isExpressionStatement(statement))
+                return false;
+            const sf = node.getSourceFile();
+            return (compiler.getLeadingCommentRanges(sf.text, statement.getFullStart()) ??
+                []).some((range) => comments.has(key(sf, range.pos)));
+        },
+        register(node, method, testKey, inert, awaitedObservation) {
             let statement = node;
             while (statement.parent && !compiler.isStatement(statement))
                 statement = statement.parent;
@@ -95,6 +130,7 @@ export function collectPragmas(compiler, files, relativeFile, sites) {
                     source: location(sf, node.getStart(sf)),
                     method,
                     inert,
+                    ...(awaitedObservation ? { awaitedObservation } : {}),
                 };
                 if (!comment.attachments.some((a) => a.testKey === testKey &&
                     a.source === attachment.source &&
@@ -123,7 +159,11 @@ export function collectPragmas(compiler, files, relativeFile, sites) {
                         },
                     ];
                 return matched.map(({ a, b }) => {
-                    const witnessIssue = assertionWitnessIssue(b.phases, a.source, a.method);
+                    // A source-checked poll is not an explicit assertion phase. Neither
+                    // a matching phase name nor a passing test can supply its read receipt.
+                    const witnessIssue = a.awaitedObservation
+                        ? "observation-capture-unavailable"
+                        : assertionWitnessIssue(b.phases, a.source, a.method);
                     return {
                         ...comment,
                         id: `${comment.id}@${b.id}`,
@@ -131,6 +171,9 @@ export function collectPragmas(compiler, files, relativeFile, sites) {
                         test: b.id,
                         assertionSource: a.source,
                         assertionMethod: a.method,
+                        ...(a.awaitedObservation
+                            ? { awaitedObservation: a.awaitedObservation }
+                            : {}),
                         witness: witnessIssue
                             ? "unavailable"
                             : "passed",