fix: use closed ranges as port ranges (and some docs fixes)

unjs / get-port-please

🔌 Get an available open port

MIT License

245 stars 12 forks source link

fix: use closed ranges as port ranges (and some docs fixes) #66

Closed vvagaytsev closed 8 months ago

vvagaytsev commented 11 months ago

🔗 Linked issue

None.

❓ Type of change

[x] 📖 Documentation (updates to the documentation, readme, or JSdoc annotations)
[ ] 🐞 Bug fix (a non-breaking change that fixes an issue)
[ ] 👌 Enhancement (improving an existing functionality like performance)
[ ] ✨ New feature (a non-breaking change that adds functionality)
[ ] 🧹 Chore (updates to the build process or auxiliary tools and libraries)
[ ] ⚠️ Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

📚 Description

Added some details on the port range decriptions.
Fixed a couple of typos in the README.md.
Added some unit tests for _generateRange internal helpers.

📝 Checklist

[ ] I have linked an issue or discussion.
[x] I have updated the documentation accordingly.

vvagaytsev commented 11 months ago

Currently, the library silently considers a range as an empty one if the range's start is greater or equal than its end.

A couple of questions/ideas:

Would it make sense to use closed ranges (i.e. with inclusive end)? If yes, then the range of [1, 1] would return a singleton array [1] instead of an empty one. That might be more intuitive and expected.
Should reverse ranges be supported as well?

pi0 commented 11 months ago

Would it make sense to use closed ranges (i.e. with inclusive end)?

Sure 👍🏼 While it is a slight behavior change, i think it would be harmless to have as a fix. Do you mind to include it in same PR as a fix? 🙏🏼

Should reverse ranges be supported as well?

It is little necessary complexity in implementation IMO. Any specific reason to do it?

vvagaytsev commented 11 months ago

Would it make sense to use closed ranges (i.e. with inclusive end)?

Sure 👍🏼 While it is a slight behavior change, i think it would be harmless to have as a fix. Do you mind to include it in same PR as a fix? 🙏🏼

Sure! I'll update the PR soon.

Should reverse ranges be supported as well?

It is little necessary complexity in implementation IMO. Any specific reason to do it?

No, there is no specific reason for doing that :) A reverse-ordered array can easily be created in the code and passed as a ports parameter's value if necessary.

vvagaytsev commented 11 months ago

@pi0 I made the fix in 6255565ed093175c3cfd2292f4959549cb604f24, please take a look :)

vvagaytsev commented 11 months ago

Hi @pi0! What would be the next steps to get this merged? There is one workflow awaiting approval from a maintainer. Could you help me with that, please? Thank you! :)