add initial rulesets#4
Conversation
|
Just as an unrelated question, once these are released, do you think you'll include them in the sets fields of the machine generated linter JSON? |
|
@parlough: totally, we should do that. could you maybe open an issue on the linter to track? |
For reference, opened an issue at dart-lang/sdk#58382 |
| @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ | |||
| linter: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if we want the file path here to be /lib/dart/core.yaml so that we could also have a /lib/flutter/core.yaml ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting. Scoping has some other nice benefits too.
@goderbauer @devoncarew : wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TBH I think that supporting frameworks in this package will be challenging. Once we add one there's no reason we shouldn't then support more; changes here will be tightly versioned together even though the frameworks will be logically unrelated.
I'd optimize for the 'dart' case here, and just have the two main files in the top level of the lib/ directory.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd optimize for the 'dart' case here,
I guess if we leave it as is, we could always add directories for frameworks (if we added them). So we might have something like:
lib/
core.yaml
recommend.yaml
framework_1/
core.yaml
recommend.yaml
framework_2/
core.yaml
...
What do we think about flutter in the short term? Top-level, nested or somewhere else?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FWIW, I don't think we will have multiple lint sets for flutter. There'll just be a flutter.yaml set,
|
Landing and we can iterate. Thanks for all the thoughtful back and forth! |
* initial rulesets * + include
Content carried over from WIP in: https://github.com/dart-lang/linter/tree/master/tool/canonical
@munificent: could you spot check?
/cc @devoncarew @mit-mit @goderbauer