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
[no-sequences] Add option to disable the "in-parentheses" exception #14197
Labels
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
Projects
Comments
danielrentz
added
enhancement
This change enhances an existing feature of ESLint
rule
Relates to ESLint's core rules
triage
An ESLint team member will look at this issue soon
labels
Mar 10, 2021
mdjermanovic
removed
the
triage
An ESLint team member will look at this issue soon
label
Mar 10, 2021
Thanks for opening this new issue!
The proposed option makes sense to me 👍 |
1 task
1 task
@danielrentz no worries, I will champion the change. :) it may take a while for the issue being reviewed by other team members, and reach consensus. |
Makes sense to me. 👍 |
Agreed 👍 and marking as accepted. |
btmills
added
the
accepted
There is consensus among the team that this change meets the criteria for inclusion
label
Mar 24, 2021
mdjermanovic
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 26, 2021
#14199) * New: add option "allowInParentheses" to rule "no-sequences" * added documentation * [no-equence]: switch default of "allowInParentheses" to true * restored removed sentence * changes from code review * code review
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
enhancement
This change enhances an existing feature of ESLint
rule
Relates to ESLint's core rules
Follow-up for bug report #14184
What rule do you want to change?
no-sequences
Does this change cause the rule to produce more or fewer warnings?
more warnings
How will the change be implemented? (New option, new default behavior, etc.)?
Please provide some example code that this change will affect:
Intended was
This real-life bug sneaked in after replacing a comparison function with the comparison operator
It was hard to find because the sequence expression was hidden in a short-circuiting AND operator.
What does the rule currently do for this code?
Lets it pass.
What will the rule do after it's changed?
Warns for the sequence.
Are you willing to submit a pull request to implement this change?
No.Yes.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: