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
-
Some rule options start with words like
allow
orignore
and make the rule more lenient. For example:@typescript-eslint/prefer-readonly-parameter-types
>ignoreInferredTypes
@typescript-eslint/restrict-plus-operands
>allowAny
Other rule options start with words like
check
and make the rule more strict. For example:@typescript-eslint/prefer-readonly-parameter-types
>checkParameterProperties
@typescript-eslint/restrict-plus-operands
>checkCompoundAssignments
Some 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