Update: lint code block with same extension but different content #14227

JounQin · 2021-03-18T06:11:50Z

Prerequisites checklist

I have read the contributing guidelines.

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

[ ] Documentation update
[x] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[ ] 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)

As title

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

eslint-github-bot · 2021-03-18T06:11:54Z

Hi @JounQin!, thanks for the Pull Request

The first commit message isn't properly formatted. We ask that you update the message to match this format, as we use it to generate changelogs and automate releases.

The commit message tag must be one of the following:

The Tag is one of the following:
- Fix - for a bug fix.
- Update - either for a backwards-compatible enhancement or for a rule change that adds reported problems.
- New - implements a new feature.
- Breaking - for a backwards-incompatible enhancement or feature.
- Docs - changes to documentation only.
- Build - changes to build process only.
- Upgrade - for a dependency upgrade.
- Chore - for anything that isn't user-facing (for example, refactoring, adding tests, etc.).
You can use the labels of the issue you are working on to determine the best tag.
There should be a space following the initial tag and colon, for example 'New: Message'.
The first letter of the tag should be in uppercase

Read more about contributing to ESLint here

mdjermanovic · 2021-03-19T16:21:35Z

lib/linter/linter.js

-            // Resolve configuration again if the file extension was changed.
-            if (configForRecursive && path.extname(blockName) !== originalExtname) {
-                debug("Resolving configuration again because the file extension was changed.");
+            // Resolve configuration again if the file content or extension was changed.
+            if (configForRecursive && (text !== blockText || path.extname(blockName) !== originalExtname)) {
+                debug("Resolving configuration again because the file content or extension was changed.");


This is potentially a breaking change. The current behavior when preprocess() returns the same extension isn't well documented, but maybe some processors don't expect that they'll be run again on a part of content that originates from the same file. This also changes how existing user configurations will be interpreted (#14207).

Is there any example that this change will break some processors? I can't imagine that.

And It's just the correct behavior.

And by referencing my original issue, I don't understand what will change, I tried this change locally, rules of *.foo/*(including *.foo/*.foo) take higher priority than *.foo, it is very expected to me.

I agree with you that the current behavior looks unexpected, but we can't really know all third-party processors to tell if this will break something. I marked this PR as "breaking" until we figure out whether the original issue is a bug or just an undocumented exception in the behavior, and estimate the impact of a fix if it's a bug.

Then how do you figure out whether it's a bug?

I see part 2 as a bug fix that will break at least one processor and possibly others.

Is it still an open question whether we will fix only 1, or both 1 and 2?

As @btmills mentioned, foo.md/0_0.markdown/0_0.js is already been linted now, so 2) should be fixed too.

Besides, this issue has been fixed by eslint/eslint-plugin-markdown#183.

Yes, I noticed that eslint-plugin-markdown has been fixed and released, I'm just concerned about the "possibly others" part.

That issue is not caused by this fix at all, and also md -> html -> js, so I don't think we should concern about that part.

I agree. If other processors have the same implementation bug as eslint-plug-in-markdown, it's already possible to repro with a different syntax in between, so this is making it slightly easier to encounter in the worst case.

nzakas · 2021-03-31T00:58:26Z

Per #14207, this issue has been accepted and there’s consensus that this change can be done in a minor version.

nzakas · 2021-04-07T00:21:33Z

What’s the next step on this PR?

tests/lib/eslint/eslint.js

close #14207

mdjermanovic

This LGTM but would like someone else to verify.

btmills

LGTM. Thanks for all the processor improvements recently @JounQin! This can be merged once we've confirmed that Friday's release won't require a follow-up patch release.

eslint-github-bot bot added the triage An ESLint team member will look at this issue soon label Mar 18, 2021

JounQin changed the title ~~fix: lint code block with same extension but different content~~ Fix: lint code block with same extension but different content Mar 18, 2021

mdjermanovic reviewed Mar 19, 2021

View reviewed changes

mdjermanovic added breaking This change is backwards-incompatible core Relates to ESLint's core APIs and features and removed triage An ESLint team member will look at this issue soon labels Mar 19, 2021

mdjermanovic mentioned this pull request Mar 25, 2021

overrides with processor works unexpectedly #14207

Closed

nzakas 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 and removed breaking This change is backwards-incompatible labels Mar 31, 2021

mdjermanovic requested changes Apr 9, 2021

View reviewed changes

tests/lib/eslint/eslint.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tests/lib/eslint/eslint.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JounQin added 2 commits April 9, 2021 03:57

Fix: lint code block with same extension but different content

ff40b7b

close #14207

Chore: apply review suggestions

96f1949

JounQin requested a review from mdjermanovic April 9, 2021 04:14

mdjermanovic approved these changes Apr 9, 2021

View reviewed changes

mdjermanovic changed the title ~~Fix: lint code block with same extension but different content~~ Update: lint code block with same extension but different content Apr 9, 2021

nzakas requested a review from btmills April 10, 2021 00:35

btmills approved these changes Apr 12, 2021

View reviewed changes

btmills merged commit 41b3570 into eslint:master Apr 13, 2021

JounQin deleted the fix/code_block branch April 13, 2021 05:57

This was referenced Apr 13, 2021

feat: support processor virtual filename prettier/eslint-plugin-prettier#401

Merged

[Fix] version detection: support recursive processor virtual filename jsx-eslint/eslint-plugin-react#2965

Merged

eslint-github-bot bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 11, 2021

eslint-github-bot bot added the archived due to age This issue has been archived; please open a new issue for any further discussion label Oct 11, 2021

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Update: lint code block with same extension but different content #14227

Update: lint code block with same extension but different content #14227

JounQin commented Mar 18, 2021

eslint-github-bot bot commented Mar 18, 2021

mdjermanovic Mar 19, 2021

JounQin Mar 19, 2021

JounQin Mar 19, 2021

mdjermanovic Mar 19, 2021

JounQin Mar 20, 2021

mdjermanovic Apr 9, 2021

JounQin Apr 9, 2021 •

edited

mdjermanovic Apr 9, 2021

JounQin Apr 9, 2021 •

edited

btmills Apr 12, 2021

nzakas commented Mar 31, 2021

nzakas commented Apr 7, 2021

mdjermanovic left a comment

btmills left a comment

Navigation Menu

Update: lint code block with same extension but different content #14227

Update: lint code block with same extension but different content #14227

Conversation

JounQin commented Mar 18, 2021

Prerequisites checklist

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

What changes did you make? (Give an overview)

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

eslint-github-bot bot commented Mar 18, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JounQin Apr 9, 2021 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JounQin Apr 9, 2021 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nzakas commented Mar 31, 2021

nzakas commented Apr 7, 2021

mdjermanovic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

btmills left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JounQin Apr 9, 2021 •

edited

JounQin Apr 9, 2021 •

edited