Fix editorconfig parseSync option #387

[Bartheleway]

Fix #387

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 99.68%. Comparing base (f1a96e0) to head (a62a0ab).
⚠️ Report is 129 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #394      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.68%   99.68%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files           7        7              
  Lines         320      319       -1     
  Branches       90       95       +5     
==========================================
- Hits          319      318       -1     
  Misses          1        1              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Fixes the .editorconfig integration in Validator to address issue #387 by changing how the EditorConfig library is invoked so it no longer depends on process.cwd() being within the target project.

Changes:

• Add Node’s path module to support filename extraction.
• Replace the previous CWD-based “relative path” logic with path.basename(...) when passing config to editorconfig.parseSync().

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Bartheleway]

Are we all good or is there anything else to clarify or modify ?

[schorfES]

Hi @Bartheleway, I am a bit busy and haven't really managed to have a deeper look yet. But I promise to do it soon. I am wondering at first sight if we still need all these path checks, or if we can simply forward the value into editorconfig...

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

[Bartheleway]

Should I fix? I feel that it will not cause damage even if test fails.

[schorfES]

Hi @Bartheleway,sorry for the long waiting...

From what I see now, I am pretty sure we can simplify a few things and adjust the tests accordingly. From my point of view, I would just pass a valid value for the editorconfig filename into the option and let editorconfig do the rest.

Thanks in advance for your collaboration, looking forward to your thoughts!