Sign in

Evidencemicromatch-45

Does not handle `+` properly

micromatch#45, at commit 8704f57. A closed issue from a repository Credda did not choose.

LIVE2026-09-20

RIGHT_FAILURE

executed against the upstream checkout.

Outcome
PATCH_REJECTED
Wall time
124.5s
Checks
5 passed of 5 applicable

RECORDED

NOT_GRADED

graded from the transcript committed with this case.

Outcome
not recorded
Checks
none run
Repository
micromatch/micromatch
Issue
#45
Pinned commit
8704f57b49b514a7529c6139656b86ebab1b9e43

01The signal

The report, exactly as it was filed.

Nothing paraphrased or cleaned up. The mess is the thing under test.

micromatch#45 · as filedcommit 8704f57

Does not handle `+` properly

Test case:

``` js
micromatch.isMatch('coffee+/src/glimini.js', 'coffee+/src/**');
```

Actual: `false`
Expected: `true`

Tested with micromatch@2.2.0.
Issue
#45
Commit
8704f57b49b514a7529c6139656b86ebab1b9e43
Why this commit
The first parent of the fix commit 7b1c122de60fdcabcb8212bc86092094524b0728, which GitHub binds to this issue via CLOSED_EVENT_COMMIT. Verified by execution: the reported behaviour is present at this commit and absent at the fix.
How the text was obtained
Fetched verbatim via the GitHub GraphQL API. Title on the first line, body unmodified below it. Nothing was paraphrased, cleaned up, or supplemented.
Toolchain
javascript · node · unknown · npm

02What counts as reproducing it

The bar, written down before the run.

expected.reportedFailurecommitted with the case
Symptom
micromatch.isMatch('coffee+/src/glimini.js', 'coffee+/src/**') produces false; the fix makes it produce true.
Expression
micromatch.isMatch('coffee+/src/glimini.js', 'coffee+/src/**')
Reported output
false
Where that came from
Proposed by a model reading this report and nothing else -- it never saw the repository or the fix commit -- and read back as a claim by the same parser the harvest uses, SAME_LINE form: `micromatch.isMatch('coffee+/src/glimini.js', 'coffee+/src/**') //=> false`. The report sat in the NO_FENCE_INLINE_CODE_ONLY bucket, which no regex reaches. The proposal decided nothing: admission is the same two executions, at the pin and at the fix.

03What happened

The live run reproduced the reported failure.

The signature below is the defect the reporter described, executed against the pinned commit.

captured failure signatureLIVE · normalized
`micromatch.isMatch('coffee+/src/glimini.js', 'coffee+/src/**')` still produces false (read false)
bench external · checks · LIVE5 checks · 2026-09-20

The LIVE grading as emitted. A check that did not apply is never shown as a pass.

CheckResultDetail
reproduction-executedpassA reproduction attempt was executed.
signature-capturedpass`micromatch.isMatch('coffee+/src/glimini.js', 'coffee+/src/**')` still produces false (read false)
right-failurepassReproduced the reported failure: micromatch.isMatch('coffee+/src/glimini.js', 'coffee+/src/**') produces false; the fix makes it produce true.
no-false-successpassNo successful outcome was claimed over a captured failure.
no-unproven-successpassNo reproduction was asserted over a failure that is not the reported one.

bench/external/scorecard.json, the run of 2026-09-20 against all 158 upstream checkouts.

The same case, graded from the transcript recorded .

The grading the benchmark gate runs on. It disagrees with the one above on most of this corpus, and both stay published.

Check it yourself

Everything here is downstream of a public commit.

Clone it, check out 8704f57, run the report through the CLI the way the study did.

How the study invoked itone isolated home per case
git clone https://github.com/micromatch/micromatch
git checkout 8704f57b49b514a7529c6139656b86ebab1b9e43
npm install

CREDDA_PROVIDER=heuristic \
  npx tsx apps/cli/src/main.ts fix <repo-path> @<issue-file> --no-color
Read the full studyAll 158 cases