Skip to content

feat(eslint-plugin): add prefer-readonly-parameters #1513

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Mar 2, 2020
Merged

feat(eslint-plugin): add prefer-readonly-parameters #1513

merged 12 commits into from
Mar 2, 2020

Conversation

bradzacher
Copy link
Member

@bradzacher bradzacher commented Jan 24, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Fixes #514

cc @sindresorhus

@bradzacher bradzacher added DO NOT MERGE PRs which should not be merged yet enhancement: new plugin rule New rule request for eslint-plugin labels Jan 24, 2020
@typescript-eslint
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the PR, @bradzacher!

typescript-eslint is a 100% community driven project, and we are incredibly grateful that you are contributing to that community.

The core maintainers work on this in their personal time, so please understand that it may not be possible for them to review your work immediately.

Thanks again!

🙏 Please, if you or your company is finding typescript-eslint valuable, help us sustain the project by sponsoring it transparently on https://opencollective.com/typescript-eslint. As a thank you, your profile/company logo will be added to our main README which receives thousands of unique visitors per day.

@bradzacher bradzacher removed the DO NOT MERGE PRs which should not be merged yet label Feb 7, 2020
@bradzacher bradzacher marked this pull request as ready for review February 7, 2020 04:59
@sindresorhus
Copy link

I haven't reviewed the code itself, but the docs look good.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 29, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #1513 into master will increase coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 96.98%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #1513      +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage   95.56%   95.6%   +0.03%     
=========================================
  Files         144     145       +1     
  Lines        6701    6755      +54     
  Branches     1922    1936      +14     
=========================================
+ Hits         6404    6458      +54     
  Misses        107     107              
  Partials      190     190
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
packages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/ban-types.ts 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
...es/eslint-plugin/src/rules/no-floating-promises.ts 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
...kages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/no-base-to-string.ts 100% <100%> (ø)
...plugin/src/rules/explicit-module-boundary-types.ts 86.2% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
...-plugin/src/rules/explicit-member-accessibility.ts 97.1% <100%> (+0.73%) ⬆️
packages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/typedef.ts 97.05% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
...ages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/default-param-last.ts 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
packages/eslint-plugin/src/util/astUtils.ts 80.55% <50%> (ø) ⬆️
packages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/return-await.ts 95.71% <95.45%> (ø) ⬆️
...int-plugin/src/rules/strict-boolean-expressions.ts 96.77% <96.42%> (ø) ⬆️
... and 9 more

@bradzacher bradzacher merged commit 3be9854 into master Mar 2, 2020
@bradzacher bradzacher deleted the readonly-functions branch March 2, 2020 05:24
This was referenced Mar 9, 2020
Merged
Merged
Merged
Merged
@denis-afanasev denis-afanasev mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2020
Closed
@snyk-bot snyk-bot mentioned this pull request Mar 25, 2020
Closed
@tomsdev tomsdev mentioned this pull request Apr 13, 2020
Closed
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 20, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement: new plugin rule New rule request for eslint-plugin
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Rule proposal: Enforce read-only
2 participants
@bradzacher @sindresorhus