compat-review

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Compat Layer Review

兼容层评审

Verify that a compat PR actually fixes a real lodash inconsistency.

验证兼容PR是否真正修复了与lodash之间的实际不一致问题。

Input

输入

$ARGUMENTS — PR number (e.g.

) or function name (e.g.

chunk

)

$ARGUMENTS — PR编号（例如

）或函数名称（例如

chunk

）

Workflow

工作流程

1. Identify target function and PR claims

1. 确定目标函数与PR声明

PR number:

bash

gh pr view {number} --repo toss/es-toolkit --json title,body,files

From the PR description and diff, extract:

Which compat function is being fixed
What inconsistency the contributor claims (expected vs actual behavior)
Any test examples the contributor provides

Function name: Read the function source and its spec to understand current behavior.

PR编号:

bash

gh pr view {number} --repo toss/es-toolkit --json title,body,files

从PR描述和差异中提取：

正在修复的兼容函数是哪一个
贡献者声称存在的不一致问题（预期行为 vs 实际行为）
贡献者提供的任何测试示例

函数名称：阅读函数源码及其规范，了解当前行为。

2. Build comparison test

2. 构建对比测试

Create a temporary vitest spec at

src/compat/{category}/_compat-review-{fn}.spec.ts

typescript

import { describe, expect, it } from 'vitest';
import { fn as compatFn } from 'es-toolkit/compat';
import { fn as lodashFn } from 'lodash';

Include two groups of test cases:

A. Contributor's claimed examples — Extract directly from the PR description or test diff. These are the cases the PR claims to fix.

B. ~10 additional edge cases you generate — Based on the function's signature and lodash's known behavior patterns:

Empty inputs:
```
[]
```
,
```
{}
```
,
```
''
```
,
```
0
```
Nullish:
```
null
```
,
```
undefined
```
Negative/zero/float numbers:
```
-1
```
,
```
0
```
,
```
1.5
```
,
```
NaN
```
,
```
Infinity
```
Type coercion: string numbers (
```
'3'
```
), boolean, mixed types
Boundary: single-element arrays, very long strings, deeply nested objects
Pick cases that are relevant to the specific function

Each test:

typescript

it('description', () => {
  let lodashResult, compatResult;
  let lodashErr: any, compatErr: any;
  try {
    lodashResult = lodashFn(args);
  } catch (e) {
    lodashErr = e;
  }
  try {
    compatResult = compatFn(args);
  } catch (e) {
    compatErr = e;
  }

  if (lodashErr && compatErr) return; // both throw = consistent
  if (lodashErr || compatErr) {
    throw new Error(`Behavior mismatch: ${lodashErr ? 'lodash throws' : 'compat throws'}`);
  }
  expect(compatResult).toEqual(lodashResult);
});

在

src/compat/{category}/_compat-review-{fn}.spec.ts

创建临时vitest测试文件。

typescript

import { describe, expect, it } from 'vitest';
import { fn as compatFn } from 'es-toolkit/compat';
import { fn as lodashFn } from 'lodash';

包含两组测试用例：

A. 贡献者声称的示例 — 直接从PR描述或测试差异中提取。这些是PR声称要修复的用例。

B. 你生成的约10个额外边缘用例 — 基于函数签名和lodash已知的行为模式：

空输入：
```
[]
```
,
```
{}
```
,
```
''
```
,
```
0
```
空值类：
```
null
```
,
```
undefined
```
负数/零/浮点数：
```
-1
```
,
```
0
```
,
```
1.5
```
,
```
NaN
```
,
```
Infinity
```
类型转换：字符串数字（
```
'3'
```
）、布尔值、混合类型
边界情况：单元素数组、极长字符串、深度嵌套对象
选择与特定函数相关的用例

每个测试：

typescript

it('description', () => {
  let lodashResult, compatResult;
  let lodashErr: any, compatErr: any;
  try {
    lodashResult = lodashFn(args);
  } catch (e) {
    lodashErr = e;
  }
  try {
    compatResult = compatFn(args);
  } catch (e) {
    compatErr = e;
  }

  if (lodashErr && compatErr) return; // 两者都抛出异常 = 行为一致
  if (lodashErr || compatErr) {
    throw new Error(`行为不匹配：${lodashErr ? 'lodash抛出异常' : 'compat抛出异常'}`);
  }
  expect(compatResult).toEqual(lodashResult);
});

3. Run comparison BEFORE the PR change

3. 在PR变更前运行对比测试

bash

yarn vitest run src/compat/{category}/_compat-review-{fn}.spec.ts

Record which tests fail — these are real inconsistencies that exist on main.

bash

yarn vitest run src/compat/{category}/_compat-review-{fn}.spec.ts

记录哪些测试失败 — 这些是主分支上存在的实际不一致问题。

4. Apply PR changes and re-run

4. 应用PR变更并重新运行

bash

gh pr diff {number} --repo toss/es-toolkit | git apply

Run the same test again. Confirm that:

The contributor's claimed examples now pass
The additional edge cases still pass (no regressions)

Revert after testing:

bash

git checkout -- .

bash

gh pr diff {number} --repo toss/es-toolkit | git apply

再次运行相同的测试。确认：

贡献者声称的示例现在通过测试
额外的边缘用例仍然通过（无回归问题）

测试后回退：

bash

git checkout -- .

5. Clean up

5. 清理

Delete

_compat-review-*.spec.ts

删除

_compat-review-*.spec.ts

文件。

6. Report

6. 报告

undefined

undefined

{fn} — Compat Review

{fn} — 兼容层评审

PR Claim

PR声明

{What the contributor says they're fixing}

{贡献者声称要修复的内容}

Verification (BEFORE fix)

验证（修复前）

#	Input	lodash	compat	Match?	Source
1	...	...	...	MISMATCH	PR example
2	...	...	...	MATCH	Edge case

#	输入	lodash	compat	是否匹配？	来源
1	...	...	...	不匹配	PR示例
2	...	...	...	匹配	边缘用例

Verification (AFTER fix)

验证（修复后）

#	Input	lodash	compat	Match?	Source

#	输入	lodash	compat	是否匹配？	来源

Verdict

结论

PR claim is valid (inconsistency confirmed on main)
Fix resolves the claimed inconsistency
No regressions in edge cases
Existing tests still pass

undefined

PR声明有效（主分支上确认存在不一致问题）
修复解决了声称的不一致问题
边缘用例无回归
现有测试仍通过

undefined