Update: no-useless-rename also reports default values (fixes #12301)#12322
Merged
platinumazure merged 2 commits intomasterfrom Sep 29, 2019
Merged
Update: no-useless-rename also reports default values (fixes #12301)#12322platinumazure merged 2 commits intomasterfrom
platinumazure merged 2 commits intomasterfrom
Conversation
3a00488 to
18b41ed
Compare
18b41ed to
9905f36
Compare
platinumazure
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2019
Member
platinumazure
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, thanks!
I agree this should be semver-minor.
| @@ -85,7 +90,9 @@ module.exports = { | |||
| const properties = node.properties; | |||
|
|
|||
| for (let i = 0; i < properties.length; i++) { | |||
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we use the index anymore, outside of the next line? If not, should this be turned into a for-of loop?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated! Did some further refactoring while I was at it. The code looks a bit simpler now!
9905f36 to
c6da1e4
Compare
kaicataldo
commented
Sep 29, 2019
| * If the property is computed, we have no idea if a rename is useless or not. | ||
| */ | ||
| if (properties[i].computed || !properties[i].key) { | ||
| if (property.shorthand || property.type === "RestElement" || property.computed) { |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like there are already tests covering the property.type === "RestElement" change on this line.
platinumazure
approved these changes
Sep 29, 2019
pi0
reviewed
Sep 29, 2019
| if (properties[i].key.type === "Identifier" && properties[i].key.name === properties[i].value.name || | ||
| properties[i].key.type === "Literal" && properties[i].key.value === properties[i].value.name) { | ||
| reportError(properties[i], properties[i].key, properties[i].value, "Destructuring assignment"); | ||
| const key = (property.key.type === "Identifier" && property.key.name) || (property.key.type === "Literal" && property.key.value); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some change here seems to break!
Failing line: https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt.js/blob/13331a02b4d5ef37932f42a845ca1754fb834243/packages/webpack/src/builder.js#L169
(just informational! I'll try to reproduce it better and make PR or Issue)
1 task
pi0
added a commit
to nuxt/nuxt
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 29, 2019
This was referenced Oct 22, 2019
This was referenced Nov 9, 2019
This was referenced Mar 11, 2020
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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
5 participants
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.
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to item)
[ ] Documentation update
[ ] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[x] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofixing to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[ ] Add something to the core
[ ] Other, please explain:
fixes #12301
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
This updates
no-useless-renameto check destructured assignments with default values. I think this should be considered a semver-minor bug fix, since it feels like an oversight that this rule doesn't already check this case.Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
Are reviewers in agreement that this should be default behavior and not behind an option?