-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.7k
[parser] Disallow static fields named constructor
#10461
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
nicolo-ribaudo
merged 3 commits into
babel:master
from
guywaldman:guywald/disallow-constructor-static-field
Sep 17, 2019
Merged
[parser] Disallow static fields named constructor
#10461
nicolo-ribaudo
merged 3 commits into
babel:master
from
guywaldman:guywald/disallow-constructor-static-field
Sep 17, 2019
+18
−182
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
- Disallowed static fields named `constructor` in a class (previously only non-static were disallowed) - Updated the text for the error for one consolidated warning, for both static and non-static fields - Added a test - Updated an existing test in the `flow` test suite of the parser to reflect the parse error. Strangely, the test used to pass and started failing when inlining the `isNonstaticConstructor` method, without any changes. In that test, `constructor` was a field, so in theory it should never have passed. Would appreciate some feedback on this, as I'm not 100% sure if this is somehow related to Flow
...l-parser/test/fixtures/flow/classes/constructor-override-with-class-prop-plugin/options.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Build successful! You can test your changes in the REPL here: https://babeljs.io/repl/build/11604/ |
Build successful! You can test your changes in the REPL here: https://babeljs.io/repl/build/11602/ |
nicolo-ribaudo
approved these changes
Sep 17, 2019
Thanks! |
existentialism
approved these changes
Sep 17, 2019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice work @guywaldman!
This was referenced Oct 3, 2019
This was referenced Oct 22, 2019
This was referenced Nov 28, 2019
This was referenced Dec 5, 2019
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Labels
outdated
A closed issue/PR that is archived due to age. Recommended to make a new issue
PR: Spec Compliance 👓
A type of pull request used for our changelog categories
Spec: Class Fields
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Main Changes
constructor
in a class (previously only non-static were disallowed)flow
test suite of the parser to reflect the parse error (see note below)Note for reviewers:
I updated an existing test in the
flow
test suite of the parser (constructor-override-with-class-prop-plugin
) to reflect the parse error. Strangely, the test used to pass and started failing when inlining theisNonstaticConstructor
method, without any changes.In that test,
constructor
was a field, so in theory it should never have passed.The test relies on the
jsx
(which is probably unrelated),flow
andclassProperties
plugins.So would appreciate some feedback on this, as I'm not 100% sure if this is somehow related to Flow.