Run sindresorhus#1221 on codebase #282
Conversation
fisker
changed the title
babel-eslint (#1211)
| if (callback.body.type !== 'BlockStatement') { | ||
| return false; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return true; | ||
| return callback.body.type === 'BlockStatement'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@fregante This is what you want 😄
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return isSameScope(parent, resolved.scope); | ||
| return definition && definition.type === 'FunctionName' && resolved.name === definition.name.name ? false : isSameScope(parent, resolved.scope); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Either this should be excluded due its length, or:
| return definition && definition.type === 'FunctionName' && resolved.name === definition.name.name ? false : isSameScope(parent, resolved.scope); | |
| const condition = definition && definition.type === 'FunctionName' && resolved.name === definition.name.name; | |
| return condition ? false : isSameScope(parent, resolved.scope); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it shouldn't use the ternary at all:
| return definition && definition.type === 'FunctionName' && resolved.name === definition.name.name ? false : isSameScope(parent, resolved.scope); | |
| return !(definition && definition.type === 'FunctionName' && resolved.name === definition.name.name) && isSameScope(parent, resolved.scope); |
But it's still not readable as is. Maybe this (I'm not sure if the boolean logic is identical though):
| return definition && definition.type === 'FunctionName' && resolved.name === definition.name.name ? false : isSameScope(parent, resolved.scope); | |
| return !( | |
| definition && | |
| definition.type === 'FunctionName' && | |
| resolved.name === definition.name.name | |
| ) && isSameScope(parent, resolved.scope); |
But given the length, once again, it's probably not worth the change
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tried reviewing many and it looks like:
- if it's a clear
return true + return false, definite improvement - if it's
return false+return other condition, thefalsemight get lost in the ternary - if the condition is long enough, the ternary should be multi-line
- if the resulting ternary is longer than 30/50 characters it starts to lose readability
Maybe as a general rule, prefer-ternary is an improvement if the 2 options are either short or visually similar. ? a : b is ok, but long(testing).here() ? a : some == long.condition('maybe') is less ok.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return afterArguments; | ||
| return dropColon ? afterArguments.slice(1).trim() : afterArguments; |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return {}; | ||
| isCompareLeft(node, '<=', 1) ? {isZeroLengthCheck: false, node} : {}; |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return `${words.slice(0, -1).join(', ')}, or ${words[words.length - 1]}`; | ||
| return words.length === 2 ? `${words[0]} or ${words[1]}` : `${words.slice(0, -1).join(', ')}, or ${words[words.length - 1]}`; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is fine, although maybe on 3 lines
| return words.length === 2 ? `${words[0]} or ${words[1]}` : `${words.slice(0, -1).join(', ')}, or ${words[words.length - 1]}`; | |
| return words.length === 2 ? | |
| `${words[0]} or ${words[1]}` : | |
| `${words.slice(0, -1).join(', ')}, or ${words[words.length - 1]}`; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But the old one still better
function englishishJoinWords(words) {
if (words.length === 1) {
return words[0];
}
if (words.length === 2) {
return `${words[0]} or ${words[1]}`;
}
return `${words.slice(0, -1).join(', ')}, or ${words[words.length - 1]}`;
}There was a problem hiding this comment.
Problem is hard to detect this. because maybe some other stuff above words.length === 2
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return new RegExp(item, 'u'); | ||
| return item instanceof RegExp ? item : new RegExp(item, 'u'); |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return { | ||
| return filenameWithExtension === '<input>' || filenameWithExtension === '<text>' ? {} : { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is ok, it was more readable before
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return greater.object.name; | ||
| return greater.property.name !== 'length' ? undefined : greater.object.name; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like this whole function could be merged into 2 return statements, but indeed the readability could potentially be trash, especially if there are comments explaining each step.
No description provided.