Evidencepicomatch-2
Relative patterns and paths with dot in the base name
picomatch#2, at commit 4fb33fd. A closed issue from a repository Credda did not choose.
LIVE2026-09-20
RIGHT_FAILUREexecuted against the upstream checkout.
- Outcome
- REPRODUCED_NOT_DIAGNOSED
- Wall time
- 92.8s
- Checks
- 5 passed of 5 applicable
RECORDED
NOT_GRADEDgraded from the transcript committed with this case.
- Outcome
- not recorded
- Checks
- none run
- Repository
- micromatch/picomatch
- Issue
- #2
- Pinned commit
- 4fb33fd5d4cb7c5e724bb7ed4628ea074204b02c
01The signal
The report, exactly as it was filed.
Nothing paraphrased or cleaned up. The mess is the thing under test.
Relative patterns and paths with dot in the base name
The `isMatch` method always returns `true` for files starting with a period if a relative path is used. The `dot` option has no effect here.
```js
const picomatch = require('picomatch');
const isMatch = picomatch('../*.js');
const result = isMatch('../.test.js');
console.log(result); // true
```
Comparing behavior with micromatch:
```js
const picomatch = require('picomatch');
const micromatch = require('micromatch');
const pico = picomatch('../*.js');
const micro = micromatch.isMatch('../.test.js', '../*.js');
console.log(pico('../.test.js')); // true
console.log(micro); // false Will be `true` with { dot: true }
```- Repository
- micromatch/picomatch
- Issue
- #2
- Commit
- 4fb33fd5d4cb7c5e724bb7ed4628ea074204b02c
- Why this commit
- The first parent of the fix commit 1ae477e762c47e6dcd55352a08b6bd44116c6150, 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.
- Symptom
- ((picomatch('../*.js'))('../.test.js')) produces true; the fix makes it produce false.
- Expression
- ((picomatch('../*.js'))('../.test.js'))
- Reported output
- true
- Where that came from
- Read mechanically from the report's fenced code, SAME_LINE form: `console.log(result); // true`.
03What happened
The live run reproduced the reported failure.
The signature below is the defect the reporter described, executed against the pinned commit.
`result` still produces true (read true)
The LIVE grading as emitted. A check that did not apply is never shown as a pass.
| Check | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| reproduction-executed | pass | A reproduction attempt was executed. |
| signature-captured | pass | `result` still produces true (read true) |
| right-failure | pass | Reproduced the reported failure: ((picomatch('../*.js'))('../.test.js')) produces true; the fix makes it produce false. |
| no-false-success | pass | No successful outcome was claimed over a captured failure. |
| no-unproven-success | pass | No 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 4fb33fd, run the report through the CLI the way the study did.
git clone https://github.com/micromatch/picomatch git checkout 4fb33fd5d4cb7c5e724bb7ed4628ea074204b02c npm install CREDDA_PROVIDER=heuristic \ npx tsx apps/cli/src/main.ts fix <repo-path> @<issue-file> --no-color