Codecov Report

Base: 93.93% // Head: 93.93% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (49fb56f) compared to base (fa47c55).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #103   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.93%   93.93%           
=======================================
  Files          19       19           
  Lines         462      462           
=======================================
  Hits          434      434           
  Misses         28       28           

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@nodejs/tsc who can approve this?

I guess this most impacts @nodejs/releasers?

Not sure how I feel about the underbar. The only place that appears otherwise is in subsystem strings that correspond to modules that have an underbar in their name. Any reason this isn't just watch? For that matter, might it just be fine using cli or something like that? Does it need a new subsystem?

Non-blocking questions for discussion. If other people think it's fine or if this has already been discussed and I just missed it, feel free to land without engaging on this. :-D

the underbar is not very important - we can change to watch.
there are a couple of PR's related to watch mode that I dont think fit the cli subsystem:
nodejs/node#45259
nodejs/node#45271

Sorry to be a pain about this, but can you squash and rewrite the commit message? I want to make sure that if we add the commit-queue label to this, the commit message says watch and not watch_mode.

We'll have to be careful to make sure that people don't use this for the fs module's watcher functionality, but I think that's a pretty unlikely error for someone to make and that reviewers would catch the error, so I'm 👍 on this.

@Trott done. can this be merged?

@Trott done. can this be merged?

Whoops, forgot that we use the commit button in this repo so I guess I could have done it right in the interface. Anyway, yes, merged, thanks!