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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat(eslint-plugin): [naming-convention] add support for "override" and "async" modifiers (#5310) #5610
feat(eslint-plugin): [naming-convention] add support for "override" and "async" modifiers (#5310) #5610
Changes from 1 commit
58dbdaf
b3446d6
f59a7f3
3a2086d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Looking at this again: we generally try not to use this string
in
checking pattern, as it's a little imprecise. We normally check for specific types. But I can see why you did it here (much less code!), and there's already an instance of it in the file.I think it's fine to check in as-is, and we should separately look into making a lint rule internally that flags this kind of check.
I also think I'd meant to post this in the first review but forgot 😄
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, and its not great for readability also, its not really clear what the intent of the
in
is, in terms of what node types its trying to check for, but I went with it since it was used everywhere in that fileYeah I don't do it like this usually, but I was also surprised how short the code gets, but I'm still a fan of the type utils for better communication (but please don't ask me change it now😅)
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.
Haha don't worry, I won't 😄
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.
eslint-community/eslint-plugin-eslint-plugin#326