Repository navigation
Conversation
This branch has not been deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this change?
Adds a CI step right after checkout that fails when a file starts with a UTF-8 BOM or has text garbled by the wrong encoding, and prints every file and line it found. It looks for the BOM and for a few byte sequences that only show up when UTF-8 was read as another encoding, like a dash that turned into three other characters. The patterns are written as byte escapes, so the workflow file doesn't match itself.
Both have reached PRs this month: four new files with a BOM in the first version of toolbelt #190, and 24 garbled lines in its
lib/tools.tsafter a rebase. Review caught them, but CI should.How I tested this
lib/tools.tsplus the template's BOM on c7de664.