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: lint code block with same extension but different content #14227
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there any example that this change will break some processors? I can't imagine that.
And It's just the correct behavior.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Then how do you figure out whether it's a bug?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it still an open question whether we will fix only 1, or both 1 and 2?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I noticed that
eslint-plugin-markdown
has been fixed and released, I'm just concerned about the "possibly others" part.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.