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
computed-property-spacing new option for class members #12049
computed-property-spacing new option for class members #12049
Comments
If the option from the start checks all members that have If the option checks only |
I'll champion this. I like |
There are already similar names:
The convention that I like On the other hand, the majority of existing options do follow the above convention and it makes the names shorter. I'm not sure what would be better, but it makes sense that whatever will be decided should apply to all future options.
I didn't know is it okay to expand the rule to a new class syntax without an option in a semver-minor update. In that case, there is no need to 'generically' check all |
Apologies, I should clarify that this is just my own opinion and the team might disagree. And also, I probably should say it is case by case- depending on if users would see the new language feature as a natural extension of the old, and therefore one they would want to enforce the same style on. If there's any doubt, then of course we should have separate options. But the more options we have, the harder it is to learn and to maintain the rule. Maintaining projects like this can be tricky. 😄 |
This also needs one more 👍 to be accepted? |
I'm working on this.
|
What rule do you want to change?
computed-property-spacing
Does this change cause the rule to produce more or fewer warnings?
More if the option is set.
How will the change be implemented? (New option, new default behavior, etc.)?
New option.
Please provide some example code that this change will affect:
What does the rule currently do for this code?
Nothing.
What will the rule do after it's changed?
Report warning / fix spacing.
Are you willing to submit a pull request to implement this change?
Yes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: