fix(eslint-plugin): fix schemas across several rules and add schema tests #6947
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ | ||
| import * as util from '../src/util'; | ||
| import { areOptionsValid } from './areOptionsValid'; | ||
|
|
||
| const exampleRule = util.createRule<['value-a' | 'value-b'], never>({ | ||
| name: 'my-example-rule', | ||
| meta: { | ||
| type: 'layout', | ||
| docs: { | ||
| description: 'Detects something or other', | ||
| }, | ||
| schema: [{ type: 'string', enum: ['value-a', 'value-b'] }], | ||
| messages: {}, | ||
| }, | ||
| defaultOptions: ['value-a'], | ||
| create() { | ||
| return {}; | ||
| }, | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| test('returns true for valid options', () => { | ||
| expect(areOptionsValid(exampleRule, ['value-a'])).toBe(true); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| describe('returns false for invalid options', () => { | ||
| test('bad enum value', () => { | ||
| expect(areOptionsValid(exampleRule, ['value-c'])).toBe(false); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| test('bad type', () => { | ||
| expect(areOptionsValid(exampleRule, [true])).toBe(false); | ||
| }); | ||
| }); |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ | ||
| import { TSUtils } from '@typescript-eslint/utils'; | ||
| import type { RuleModule } from '@typescript-eslint/utils/ts-eslint'; | ||
| import Ajv from 'ajv'; | ||
| import type { JSONSchema4 } from 'json-schema'; | ||
|
|
||
| const ajv = new Ajv({ async: false }); | ||
|
|
||
| export function areOptionsValid( | ||
| rule: RuleModule<string, readonly unknown[]>, | ||
| options: unknown, | ||
| ): boolean { | ||
| const normalizedSchema = normalizeSchema(rule.meta.schema); | ||
|
|
||
| const valid = ajv.validate(normalizedSchema, options); | ||
| if (typeof valid !== 'boolean') { | ||
| // Schema could not validate options synchronously. This is not allowed for ESLint rules. | ||
| return false; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return valid; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function normalizeSchema( | ||
| schema: JSONSchema4 | readonly JSONSchema4[], | ||
| ): JSONSchema4 { | ||
| if (!TSUtils.isArray(schema)) { | ||
| return schema; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (schema.length === 0) { | ||
| return { | ||
| type: 'array', | ||
| minItems: 0, | ||
| maxItems: 0, | ||
| }; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return { | ||
| type: 'array', | ||
| items: schema as JSONSchema4[], | ||
| minItems: 0, | ||
| maxItems: schema.length, | ||
| }; | ||
| } |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ import { TSESLint } from '@typescript-eslint/utils'; | |
|
|
||
| import type { OptionString } from '../../src/rules/array-type'; | ||
| import rule from '../../src/rules/array-type'; | ||
| import { areOptionsValid } from '../areOptionsValid'; | ||
|
|
||
| const ruleTester = new RuleTester({ | ||
| parser: '@typescript-eslint/parser', | ||
|
|
@@ -2156,3 +2157,19 @@ type BrokenArray = { | |
| ); | ||
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| describe('schema validation', () => { | ||
| // https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/issues/6852 | ||
| test("array-type does not accept 'simple-array' option", () => { | ||
| if (areOptionsValid(rule, [{ default: 'simple-array' }])) { | ||
| throw new Error(`Options succeeded validation for bad options`); | ||
| } | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| // https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/issues/6892 | ||
| test('array-type does not accept non object option', () => { | ||
| if (areOptionsValid(rule, ['array'])) { | ||
| throw new Error(`Options succeeded validation for bad options`); | ||
| } | ||
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
Comment on lines
+2161
to
+2175
There was a problem hiding this comment. I wonder if we should do a rule-tester style API here to remove the boilerplate. ruleOptionsTester(rule, {
valid: [ ... ],
invalid: [
[{ default: 'simple-array' }],
['array'],
],
});There was a problem hiding this comment. Yeah, I think something like this would be neat if we end up doing a lot of these kinds of tests. For now I think it's simple enough that we can leave this to be done in future if necessary? There was a problem hiding this comment. Note that there is This would allow us to include these tests in the rule like: tester.run('rule', rule, {
valid: [ ... ],
invalid: [ ... ],
fatal: [
{
options: ['simple-array'],
error: {
name: 'SchemaValidationError',
message: 'Whatever the json schema error is',
},
},
{
options: ['array'],
error: {
name: 'SchemaValidationError',
message: 'Whatever the json schema error is',
},
},
],
}so definitely we don't need to bother with building a bespoke test framework! |
||
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
question: why did you switch back to basing off of the base rule's schema here?
Any reason or was it just to go back to de-duping things?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No strong reason: just to dedupe things / keep things in sync.