Skip to content

Conversation

@Neerajpathak07
Copy link
Member

Resolves #6804.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

  • migrates utils/none-own-by to object/none-own-by

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

No.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

  • Yes
  • No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

  • Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
  • Test/benchmark generation
  • Documentation (including examples)
  • Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

{{TODO: add disclosure if applicable}}


@stdlib-js/reviewers

This commit removes the `noneOwnBy` symbol from the `@stdlib/utils`
namespace due to a package migration.

BREAKING CHANGE: remove `noneOwnBy`

To migrate, users should access the same symbol via the
`@stdlib/object` namespace.

Ref: stdlib-js#6804
This commit removes `@stdlib/utils/none-own-by` in favor of
`@stdlib/object/none-own-by`.

BREAKING CHANGE: remove `utils/none-own-by`

To migrate, users should update their require/import paths to use
`@stdlib/object/none-own-by` which provides the same API and implementation.

Ref: stdlib-js#6804
@stdlib-bot
Copy link
Contributor

stdlib-bot commented Dec 1, 2025

Coverage Report

Package Statements Branches Functions Lines
namespace/alias2pkg $\color{green}95/95$
$color{green}+10.47%$
$\color{green}7/7$
$color{green}+0.00%$
$\color{green}1/1$
$color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}95/95$
$color{green}+10.47%$
namespace $\color{red}39324/39427$
$color{red}--0.26%$
$\color{green}112/112$
$color{green}+0.00%$
$\color{red}2/11$
$color{red}--81.82%$
$\color{red}39324/39427$
$color{red}--0.26%$
namespace/pkg2alias $\color{green}100/100$
$color{green}+14.94%$
$\color{green}10/10$
$color{green}+0.00%$
$\color{green}1/1$
$color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}100/100$
$color{green}+14.94%$
namespace/pkg2related $\color{green}100/100$
$color{green}+14.94%$
$\color{green}10/10$
$color{green}+0.00%$
$\color{green}1/1$
$color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}100/100$
$color{green}+14.94%$
namespace/pkg2standalone $\color{green}95/95$
$color{green}+10.47%$
$\color{green}7/7$
$color{green}+0.00%$
$\color{green}1/1$
$color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}95/95$
$color{green}+10.47%$
namespace/standalone2pkg $\color{green}95/95$
$color{green}+10.47%$
$\color{green}7/7$
$color{green}+0.00%$
$\color{green}1/1$
$color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}95/95$
$color{green}+10.47%$
object/every-own-by $\color{green}123/123$
$color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}10/10$
$color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}1/1$
$color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}123/123$
$color{green}+100.00%$
object/none-own-by $\color{green}125/125$
$color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}10/10$
$color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}1/1$
$color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}125/125$
$color{green}+100.00%$
utils $\color{red}45682/61966$
$color{red}--26.28%$
$\color{red}763/807$
$color{red}--5.45%$
$\color{red}23/511$
$color{red}--95.50%$
$\color{red}45682/61966$
$color{red}--26.28%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.

@kgryte
Copy link
Member

kgryte commented Dec 1, 2025

The CI failures are not due to anything done in this PR, so should be fine to mark ready for review.

@kgryte kgryte added the release: Major Breaking change requiring a new major release. label Dec 1, 2025
@Neerajpathak07
Copy link
Member Author

@kgryte alright

@Neerajpathak07 Neerajpathak07 marked this pull request as ready for review December 1, 2025 07:57
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot added the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Dec 1, 2025
@Neerajpathak07
Copy link
Member Author

@kgryte Let me also take a look into what's causing this error specific for typescript declarations.

@kgryte kgryte removed the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Dec 1, 2025
Ref: stdlib-js#8678

Signed-off-by: Athan <kgryte@gmail.com>
Copy link
Member

@kgryte kgryte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM after fixing a typo

@kgryte
Copy link
Member

kgryte commented Dec 1, 2025

As the CI failure is not due to changes introduced in this PR, I'll go ahead and merge.

@kgryte kgryte merged commit 5dfb3a9 into stdlib-js:develop Dec 1, 2025
12 of 13 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

release: Major Breaking change requiring a new major release.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[RFC]: migrate utils/none-own-by to object/none-own-by

3 participants