Skip to content
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

Update: enforceForOrderingRelations no-unsafe-negation (fixes #12163) #12414

Merged
merged 8 commits into from Oct 21, 2019

Conversation

samrae7
Copy link
Contributor

@samrae7 samrae7 commented Oct 13, 2019

What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to item)

[ ] Documentation update
[ ] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[X] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofixing to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[ ] Add something to the core
[ ] Other, please explain:

What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
Add enforceForOrderingRelations option to no-unsafe-negation rule. See:
#12163

Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?

@eslint-deprecated eslint-deprecated bot added the triage An ESLint team member will look at this issue soon label Oct 13, 2019
@mdjermanovic mdjermanovic added accepted There is consensus among the team that this change meets the criteria for inclusion enhancement This change enhances an existing feature of ESLint rule Relates to ESLint's core rules and removed triage An ESLint team member will look at this issue soon labels Oct 13, 2019
Copy link
Member

@mdjermanovic mdjermanovic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the PR! I left some notes for tests and the documentation.

docs/rules/no-unsafe-negation.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/rules/no-unsafe-negation.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/lib/rules/no-unsafe-negation.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/lib/rules/no-unsafe-negation.js Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/lib/rules/no-unsafe-negation.js Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@platinumazure platinumazure left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me, once @mdjermanovic's concerns are addressed.

Copy link
Member

@mdjermanovic mdjermanovic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks! Just one small detail in the docs.

Could you please also change the PR title to end with (fixes #12163) ? Here are some examples.

To avoid confusion, there is no need to change commit messages. Since this PR has multiple commits, the convention from the link above applies to the PR title.


### enforceForOrderingRelations

With this option set to true, the rule is additionally enforced for:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would be good to put backticks around true

@samrae7 samrae7 changed the title Update: add enforceForOrderingRelations option to no-unsafe-negation … Update: add option to no-unsafe-negation (fixes #12163) Oct 19, 2019
@samrae7
Copy link
Contributor Author

samrae7 commented Oct 19, 2019

Thanks @mdjermanovic. I've addressed the change and fixed the PR title.

Copy link
Member

@mdjermanovic mdjermanovic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thanks!

@platinumazure would Update: enforceForOrderingRelations no-unsafe-negation (fixes #12163) be a more descriptive title?

@platinumazure
Copy link
Member

@mdjermanovic I'm not really worried in this case, because I'm pretty sure we would add more information about this change in the Highlights section of the release notes. So we can clarify the option name at that point. If you feel strongly, though, feel free to leave a Request Changes review (as I have no objection to the change either).

Copy link
Member

@mdjermanovic mdjermanovic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@samrae7 Could we please insert the option's name in the PR title, I believe it's better for the commit history.

It could be something like Update: enforceForOrderingRelations no-unsafe-negation (fixes #12163)

It isn't a correct sentence, but the keywords are included :-)

@samrae7 samrae7 changed the title Update: add option to no-unsafe-negation (fixes #12163) Update: add option enforceForOrderingRelations to no-unsafe-negation (fixes #12163) Oct 21, 2019
@samrae7
Copy link
Contributor Author

samrae7 commented Oct 21, 2019

@mdjermanovic sure, done.

@samrae7 samrae7 changed the title Update: add option enforceForOrderingRelations to no-unsafe-negation (fixes #12163) Update: enforceForOrderingRelations no-unsafe-negation (fixes #12163) Oct 21, 2019
Copy link
Member

@mdjermanovic mdjermanovic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@platinumazure platinumazure merged commit 7c8bbe0 into eslint:master Oct 21, 2019
@platinumazure
Copy link
Member

Merged! Thanks @samrae7 for contributing!

@eslint-deprecated eslint-deprecated bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 20, 2020
@eslint-deprecated eslint-deprecated bot added the archived due to age This issue has been archived; please open a new issue for any further discussion label Apr 20, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
accepted There is consensus among the team that this change meets the criteria for inclusion archived due to age This issue has been archived; please open a new issue for any further discussion enhancement This change enhances an existing feature of ESLint rule Relates to ESLint's core rules
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants