KEMBAR78
Add eslint 7 to CI by chiawendt · Pull Request #1715 · import-js/eslint-plugin-import · GitHub
Skip to content

Conversation

@chiawendt
Copy link
Contributor

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?

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