Skip to content

chore: update slophammer-ts to ^0.3.0 and run checker in CI#4

Merged
osolmaz merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
slophammer-0.3.0
Jun 11, 2026
Merged

chore: update slophammer-ts to ^0.3.0 and run checker in CI#4
osolmaz merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
slophammer-0.3.0

Conversation

@osolmaz

@osolmaz osolmaz commented Jun 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary

The slophammer-ts devDependency was pinned at ^0.1.2, and CI only ran the DRY gate — never slophammer-ts check itself, so the rule config in slophammer.yml was effectively decoration.
This change bumps the checker to ^0.3.0, migrates the config to the nested shape the checker now requires, and adds the missing check invocation to both CI and the publish workflow.
0.3.0 enforces exactly this: a repo with a slophammer config must run the checker in CI that can actually fail.

What Changed

The dependency, the config shape, and the CI wiring moved together.

  • package.json / package-lock.json: slophammer-ts ^0.1.2^0.3.0, plus a new "slophammer": "slophammer-ts check ." script.
  • slophammer.yml: coverage_thresholdcoverage.threshold, complexity_maxcomplexity.max, mutation_targetsmutation.targets.
  • .github/workflows/ci.yml and publish.yml: a npm run slophammer step after the existing dry and mutate steps.

Testing

I ran the full gate chain locally against the released 0.3.0 package.

  • npm run check (format, lint, typecheck, test, coverage, build) — passes
  • npm run dry — 0 candidates
  • npm run mutate (Stryker dry-run) — passes
  • npm run slophammer — OK: no findings, scope: 12 of 12 production files

Risks

Low. The new CI step can only fail if the checker finds a real regression, which is its purpose; everything passes today.

@osolmaz osolmaz merged commit 91f91e4 into main Jun 11, 2026
1 check passed
@osolmaz osolmaz deleted the slophammer-0.3.0 branch June 11, 2026 15:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant