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
Fix false positives for hyphenated functions in function-calc-no-unspaced-operator
#5636
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Masafumi Koba <473530+ybiquitous@users.noreply.github.com>
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.
@lachieh Thanks for the changes by my review! I've left more trivial suggestions and questions, but this PR seems mostly good! 👍🏼
@ybiquitous I inlined any function that was only used once and made the other suggested changes. Thanks! |
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.
@lachieh Thank you so much! I've left a trivial comment, but this PR looks good 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.
@lachieh Thanks for this! It'll be more robust.
I've one minor nit, otherwise LGTM.
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.
Thank you!
|
Thank you @jeddy3 and @ybiquitous! I'm really enjoying contributing and the assistance and contribution documentation the stylelint team has provided has been incredibly helpful! |
- New issues of S4650 are due to a reimplementation of the rule (see stylelint/stylelint#5636) - Old issues of S5362 are due to our custom reimplementation of the dropped rule - Old issue of S4654 seemed to be a false positive, but it's unclear why the issue disappeared
- New issues of S4650 are due to a reimplementation of the rule (see stylelint/stylelint#5636) - Old issues of S5362 are due to our custom reimplementation of the dropped rule - Old issue of S4654 seemed to be a false positive, but it's unclear why the issue disappeared
- New issues of S4650 are due to a reimplementation of the rule (see stylelint/stylelint#5636) - Old issues of S5362 are due to our custom reimplementation of the dropped rule - Old issue of S4654 seemed to be a false positive, but it's unclear why the issue disappeared
- New issues of S4650 are due to a reimplementation of the rule (see stylelint/stylelint#5636) - Old issues of S5362 are due to our custom reimplementation of the dropped rule - Old issue of S4654 seemed to be a false positive, but it's unclear why the issue disappeared
- New issues of S4650 are due to a reimplementation of the rule (see stylelint/stylelint#5636) - Old issues of S5362 are due to our custom reimplementation of the dropped rule - Old issue of S4654 seemed to be a false positive, but it's unclear why the issue disappeared
- New issues of S4650 are due to a reimplementation of the rule (see stylelint/stylelint#5636) - Old issues of S5362 are due to our custom reimplementation of the dropped rule - Old issue of S4654 seemed to be a false positive, but it's unclear why the issue disappeared
- New issues of S4650 are due to a reimplementation of the rule (see stylelint/stylelint#5636) - Old issue of S4654 seemed to be a false positive, but it's unclear why the issue disappeared
- New issues of S4650 are due to a reimplementation of the rule (see stylelint/stylelint#5636) - Old issue of S4654 seemed to be a false positive, but it's unclear why the issue disappeared
Continued from #5608 after merge of
v14
Fixes #5517