lints clean

[bingalls]

passes npm run lint

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Internal test maintenance and linting configuration updates applied with no impact to user-facing functionality or features.

---

Note

Update Node engine requirement to >=16 and bump caniuse-lite with metadata changes.

• Chore:
  • Update Node engine constraint in package-lock.json to >=16.
• Dependencies:
  • Bump caniuse-lite to 1.0.30001752 with updated metadata (license, funding).

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 5110d19. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

ESLint suppression directives were added to src/__tests__/01.js before the "failure works" and "reset works" test blocks to disable the no-unused-vars rule locally. No functional changes were made to the test logic.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Change summary
ESLint directive additions src/__tests__/01.js	Added /*eslint no-unused-vars:0*/ comments before "failure works" and "reset works" test blocks to suppress no-unused-vars linting warnings

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

This change consists solely of adding identical ESLint suppression directives. There is no logic modification, behavioral change, or code restructuring—only lint rule suppression annotations applied in two locations within a single test file.

Poem

🐰 A hop, skip, and lint directive,
Two tests escape no-unused-vars directive,
Where silence lives in ESLint's care,
The tests now run with nary a snare! 📝✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.
Title Check	❓ Inconclusive	The title "lints clean" is vague and lacks specificity about the actual changes made. While the title relates to the PR's objective of making the repository pass linting checks, it does not meaningfully describe the specific implementation details—namely that ESLint directive comments were added to suppress the no-unused-vars rule. A reader scanning the commit history would not understand what the actual change was or how it addressed the linting requirement without examining the full changeset.	Consider using a more descriptive title that specifies the change made, such as "Add ESLint directives to suppress no-unused-vars warnings" or "Suppress no-unused-vars lint warnings in test file". This would clarify the approach taken to resolve linting issues and make the purpose of the changeset clear to future reviewers.

✅ Passed checks (1 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

src/__tests__/01.js (1)

113-122: Remove unused variable instead of suppressing the lint rule.

The waitForLoading variable is destructured on line 120 but is never used in the test (the only call to it on line 138 is commented out). Rather than suppressing the no-unused-vars rule with an ESLint directive, remove the unused variable from the destructuring.

Apply this diff to remove the unused variable:

  const {
    submitButton,
    resetButton,
    taglineInput,
    bioInput,
-   waitForLoading,
    getDisplayData,
  } = renderApp()

Then remove the ESLint directive on line 113.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 86f9025 and 94f6a82.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• package-lock.json is excluded by !**/package-lock.json

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/__tests__/01.js (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

src/__tests__/01.js (1)

113-114: Discrepancy between AI summary and actual changes.

The AI-generated summary states that ESLint directives were added before both the "failure works" test and the "reset works" test, but the code only shows a change marker (~) before the "failure works" test (line 113). The "reset works" test (line 105) shows no corresponding changes.

Please confirm whether the "reset works" test should also have received an ESLint directive, or if the summary is inaccurate.

[kentcdodds]

Thanks for this. I think I'd just rather remove the unused variable. I also don't like updating the package-lock.json unnecessarily.

[kentcdodds]

Thanks!

[kentcdodds]

Suggested change

	const {submitButton, resetButton, taglineInput, bioInput, getDisplayData} =
	renderApp()

[kentcdodds]

Let's also remove the package-lock.json from this PR.