-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.8k
feat(eslint-plugin): [no-array-delete] add new rule #8067
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.
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
feat(eslint-plugin): [no-array-delete] add new rule #8067
Conversation
Thanks for the PR, @StyleShit! 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. |
✅ Deploy Preview for typescript-eslint ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
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.
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.
Getting there! A blocking request on the fix
/suggestion
difference. And some more testing I thought of just now. Thanks!~
not sure why the CI is failing. doesn't seem to be related to this PR 🤷 |
Yeah the CI failures are fixed on |
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.
Progress!
if (node.argument.type !== AST_NODE_TYPES.MemberExpression) { | ||
return null; | ||
} |
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.
[Cleanup] I can see why this code helps - node.argument
loses its type refinement (narrowing) inside this closure. But it's a duplicate statement that shouldn't be necessary.
I think a cleaner approach would be to store node.argument
in a variable. Then we wouldn't have to worry about its type being misunderstood by TypeScript later on.
const { argument } = node;
if (argument.type !== AST_NODE_TYPES.MemberExpression) {
return;
}
if (node.argument.type !== AST_NODE_TYPES.MemberExpression) { | |
return null; | |
} |
Aside: I haven't looked deeply into microsoft/TypeScript#56908 to see whether it would apply to a property of a parameter.
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.
I actually tried it and it didn't work for some reason. now it works 😅
TS is afraid of you
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.
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.
Closes #4432