Sign in

Evidencepicomatch-142

`**` does not work when in parentheses

picomatch#142, at commit 38c6b7a. A closed issue from a repository Credda did not choose.

LIVE2026-09-20

RIGHT_FAILURE

executed against the upstream checkout.

Outcome
REPRODUCED_NOT_DIAGNOSED
Wall time
78.8s
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/picomatch
Issue
#142
Pinned commit
38c6b7aefe50af10cfa978f362120d295d39cfa2

01The signal

The report, exactly as it was filed.

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

picomatch#142 · as filedcommit 38c6b7a

`**` does not work when in parentheses

The following prints `false` when I'd expect it to print `true`:
```
const pm = require('picomatch');

console.log(pm('test(/utils/**)')('test/utils'));
console.log(pm('test?(/utils/**)')('test/utils'));
``` 

On the otherhand, `pm('test/utils/**')('test/utils)` behaves as expected
Issue
#142
Commit
38c6b7aefe50af10cfa978f362120d295d39cfa2
Why this commit
The first parent of the fix commit fdfb1559e4ef761f95c3009c1fd7afceb8830f55, which GitHub binds to this issue via CLOSED_EVENT_PR. 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
pm('test(/utils/**)')('test/utils') produces false; the fix makes it produce true.
Expression
pm('test(/utils/**)')('test/utils')
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: `pm('test(/utils/**)')('test/utils') //=> false`. The report sat in the CODE_NO_ANNOTATION_AT_ALL 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
`pm('test(/utils/**)')('test/utils')` 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`pm('test(/utils/**)')('test/utils')` still produces false (read false)
right-failurepassReproduced the reported failure: pm('test(/utils/**)')('test/utils') 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 38c6b7a, 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/picomatch
git checkout 38c6b7aefe50af10cfa978f362120d295d39cfa2
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