Confusing classification of .. in the import/order rule.

[jonathanj]

The relevant rules I have configured:

  import/no-useless-path-segments: error

  import/order:
    - error
    - newlines-between: always
      groups:
        - builtin
        - external
        - internal
        - parent
        - sibling
        - index
      pathGroups:
        - pattern: "app/**"
          group: internal
        - pattern: "@/**"
          group: internal

This code:

import {…} from '..'
import {…} from '../context'

import {…} from './types'

produces this following error:

error  `..` import should occur after import of `./types`             import/order

Which is suggesting that my imports look like this:

import {…} from '../context'

import {…} from './types'

import {…} from '..'

If I change the import to instead be import {…} from '../' then I get only the following error:

error  Useless path segments for "../", should be ".."  import/no-useless-path-segments

On one hand .. is considered part of no order grouping (or index, I can't quite tell which), on the other hand ../ is considered a parent import, except with a "useless" segment.

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstood or missed some part of the documentation but I'm rather confused. I would like .. to group with imports like ../context, since it is equivalent to ../index.

[ljharb]

.. and ../ should both be considered a parent import, for sure.

I agree that either one should be treated as the same import group as ../context, since indeed they're shorthand for ../index (or ../$packageJSONMain, etc).

[golopot]

This is fixed in #1658 and released in 2.20.2.