fix(karma): fix included:false pattern being ignored

[raspo]

Closes #1530

[googlebot]

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. I signed it!) and we'll verify. Thanks.

---

• If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please let us know the company's name.

[raspo]

I signed it!

[googlebot]

CLAs look good, thanks!

[dignifiedquire]

Thanks a lot, could you change the commit message to something like this: fix(file-list): ...

Also it seems there is an issue with the tests now, please make sure they pass.

[raspo]

@dignifiedquire I updated the commit message. Can you help me figure out what is the problem with travis? I don't get any errors when I run tests locally with grunt test.

[karmarunnerbot]

the problem here is the karma.conf.js file for this test:

files: [
  'test-main.js',
  {pattern: '*.js', included: false},
],

excludes 'test-main.js' which starts karma so karma never starts so it times out. Perhaps get rid of the 'excluded' check when figuring out all of the included files? Seems a file being included should take precedence over it being excluded?

[zzo]

oh heh heh I was accidentally signed in as 'karmarunnerbot' when I made that previous comment - sorry it's me.

[raspo]

When defining patterns all files are included by default and when you want to exclude some you have to specify included: false. It feels to me like the excluded patterns should take priority over the included ones.
In either case, one of the two should have a higher priority and should probably be documented somewhere. Thoughts? @zzo @dignifiedquire

[zzo]

ya seems like if a file is specifically included (without using a regex) but it's being also excluded by an exclude regex the include should win in that case - at least that's how it must have been working before for that test to pass - or something like that :)

[dignifiedquire]

Sorry for not responding earlier. I agree withehat @zzo says, to keep the old behaviour includes should take precendence over excludes if the pattern is more specific. I'm happy to discuss chamges to that in the future but for now we need that behaviour nack so we don't break everyones code.

[dignifiedquire]

@raspo any chance you could look into finishing this?

[dignifiedquire]

@raspo ping

[dignifiedquire]

@raspo ping?

[dignifiedquire]

Solved in another PR