Can we standardize logical direction of rule options? #6101
JoshuaKGoldberg
started this conversation in
Technical Discussions
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
In those cases "allow" wouldn't make sense because the rule isn't allowing something - it's expanding its set of checks. You need two verbs to describe options I think:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Some rule options start with words like
alloworignoreand make the rule more lenient. For example:@typescript-eslint/prefer-readonly-parameter-types>ignoreInferredTypes@typescript-eslint/restrict-plus-operands>allowAnyOther rule options start with words like
checkand make the rule more strict. For example:@typescript-eslint/prefer-readonly-parameter-types>checkParameterProperties@typescript-eslint/restrict-plus-operands>checkCompoundAssignmentsSome rules include both options styles - including those two! 😩 This makes it hard to keep track of them.
Can I propose we prefer the 👐
allow-prefixed names, and have their default values befalse? That way it won't be a breaking change to add them.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions