feat: Add a rule to detect useless computed property key #111
Conversation
BuBuaBu
force-pushed
the
useless_key
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b8857cf
to
0654717
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I appreciate this and even do personally prefer not quoting keys when not necessary, but hove some reservations about making this a default lint. There are likely to be too many cases in the wild where generated code or in contexts where some keys need protection and some don't for this to be appreciated:
local t = {
["a.b"] = true -- good
["a'b"] = true -- good
["a_b"] = true -- why does this necessarily get called 'bad'?
}Even normally preferring to use literal keys when possible, this lint would make some normal coding patterns require exceptions.
Have you tried running this on any code bases in the wild that use Luacheck already?
| @@ -294,3 +295,24 @@ Additionally, separate limits can be set for three different type of lines: | |||
|
|
|||
| These types of lines are limited using CLI options named ``--[no-]max-string-line-length``, ``--[no-]max-comment-line-length``, | |||
| and ``--[no-]max-code-line-length``, with similar config and inline options. | |||
|
|
|||
| Style issues (6xx) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
6xx as a header seems to be in conflict with the 7xx code described in the section
| :linenos: | ||
|
|
||
| local foo = { | ||
| ["a"] = 0, -- bad |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not a "computed property", there is no computation going on here. It is just a quoted value that can be quite handy when Lua can't parse it as a keyword. This is commonly used in generated code when the code generator can't know if the key is going to be an acceptable literal keyword or not.
At the very least calling these "computed" doesn't seem right. And I agree using them is sometimes unnecessary, but I don't think linting them as "bad" is going to be correct all the time.
| Style issues (6xx) | ||
| ----------------------- | ||
|
|
||
| Useless computed key (701) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we do move ahead with this (I have some reservations about it being on by default) then we'd need to call it "unnecessary", not "useless".
No description provided.