Fix: prefer-object-spread duplicated comma (fixes #10512, fixes #10532) #10524
Conversation
This file contains 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
mysticatea
added
bug
mysticatea
changed the title
|
I'd like one more set of eyes on this before merging. |
|
Thanks for contributing to ESLint! |
eslint-deprecated
bot
added
the
archived due to age
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to item)
[X] Bug fix: fixes #10512, fixes #10532
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
This PR fixes
prefer-object-spreadrule to generate valid code in autofix.This PR is massive because it's hard to handle code correctly in text-based way.
The new way is token-based. Basically, it finds unnecessary tokens and removes those.
Object.assign).(→{,)→}).ObjectExpressionnode, remove braces (and enclosing parentheses), and remove trailing comma if exists....before the argument.I tried to make close formatting to the original, but there are some difference in spacing.
Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
It passes existing test cases, but tell me if you want to see other cases.