Skip to content
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

Add eslint 7 to CI #1715

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 4, 2020
Merged

Add eslint 7 to CI #1715

merged 4 commits into from
Apr 4, 2020

Conversation

golopot
Copy link
Contributor

@golopot golopot commented Apr 2, 2020

The relevant breaking changes in eslint 7 are:

  1. Test cases that contains unrecognized properties are now failed.
  2. Test cases that have fixed code but missing output are now failed.
  3. The method sourceCode.getComments is deprecated.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 97.797% when pulling 5c67f17 on golopot:eslint-7 into 71ca88f on benmosher:master.

6 similar comments
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 97.797% when pulling 5c67f17 on golopot:eslint-7 into 71ca88f on benmosher:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 97.797% when pulling 5c67f17 on golopot:eslint-7 into 71ca88f on benmosher:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 97.797% when pulling 5c67f17 on golopot:eslint-7 into 71ca88f on benmosher:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 97.797% when pulling 5c67f17 on golopot:eslint-7 into 71ca88f on benmosher:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 97.797% when pulling 5c67f17 on golopot:eslint-7 into 71ca88f on benmosher:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 97.797% when pulling 5c67f17 on golopot:eslint-7 into 71ca88f on benmosher:master.

Copy link
Member

@ljharb ljharb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should all the ruleIds become types?

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ import { RuleTester } from 'eslint'
const ruleTester = new RuleTester()
, rule = require('rules/no-cycle')

const error = message => ({ ruleId: 'no-cycle', message })
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should this then be test: 'no-cycle'?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What you mean?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

oh sorry, type. You changed a bunch of ruleID: foo to be type: foo - should they all be changed, rather than just deleting them?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I changed some ruleId: ... to type: ... because these types are already correct, like ruleId: "ExportNameSpecifier" to type: "ExportNameSpecifier". In other places they are totally wrong , like ruleId: "no-cycle". Filling out the correct type for these cases is too much work for me.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can these additions made in another PR?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure, that's fine.

@MichaelDeBoey
Copy link

@benmosher @ljharb Any idea when this one will be released? 🤔

@MichaelDeBoey
Copy link

Ping @benmosher @ljharb

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Jun 3, 2020

@MichaelDeBoey it will be released, like every version, when I have time to do it. There's a number of outstanding PRs i'm hoping to merge first.

@MichaelDeBoey
Copy link

Let me know if and how I could help getting them merged/fixed 🙂

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants