Skip to content

build(deps): return vitest to 4.1.11 so mutation testing exercises mutants - #44

Merged
Mearman merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/vitest-4-for-stryker
Oct 11, 2026
Merged

Mearman merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/vitest-4-for-stryker

Conversation

@Mearman

@Mearman Mearman commented Oct 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Mutation results have been vacuous since the vitest 5 bump: the same package scores about 4 on vitest 5.0.3 and about 94 on 4.1.11 with @stryker-mutator/vitest-runner 10.0.0. Returns vitest and its coverage and browser providers to 4.1.11 through the catalog and stops Dependabot proposing a vitest major until the runner supports it. Refs #43.

@Mearman

Mearman commented Oct 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex security review

…tants

@stryker-mutator/vitest-runner 10.0.0 reports almost every mutant as surviving under vitest 5 (a
package scores about 4 there and about 94 on vitest 4 with the same tests), so no mutation result
since the bump measured anything. Dependabot no longer proposes a vitest major. The web app's unit
tests turn off Node's own localStorage global, which vitest 4's happy-dom environment does not
override.
@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 11, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
🔒 Security Review ✅ Completed 2026-10-11T10:10:51.427470Z dee8443 Manual request
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@Mearman
Mearman force-pushed the fix/vitest-4-for-stryker branch from 6e5da81 to dee8443 Compare October 11, 2026 08:26
@Mearman

Mearman commented Oct 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex security review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🛡️ Codex Security Review

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: dee8443889

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

  • You comment "@codex security review"
  • A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

@Mearman

Mearman commented Oct 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex security review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🛡️ Codex Security Review

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: dee8443889

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

  • You comment "@codex security review"
  • A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

@Mearman

Mearman commented Oct 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex security review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🛡️ Codex Security Review

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: dee8443889

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

  • You comment "@codex security review"
  • A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

@Mearman

Mearman commented Oct 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex security review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🛡️ Codex Security Review

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: dee8443889

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

  • You comment "@codex security review"
  • A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

@Mearman
Mearman merged commit b37f840 into main Oct 11, 2026
@Mearman
Mearman deleted the fix/vitest-4-for-stryker branch October 11, 2026 10:11
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🎉 This PR is included in version 1.1.1 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant