Rule: messy-rule
#714
Merged
Rule: messy-rule
#714
Conversation
This file contains 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
Help identify incremental rule definitions that aren't grouped together. Also fix two violations against this rule that we had in our own codebase. Fixes #672 Signed-off-by: Anders Eknert <anders@styra.com>
charlieegan3
approved these changes
May 13, 2024
| @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ | |||
| # messy-rule | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if 'disjointed' is would be more specific here? Fragmented might be another option.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Either way you'd need to read the rule docs to learn what it is about, so I think "messy" works well to catch the user's attention :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah I guess that's fair enough.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Help identify incremental rule definitions that aren't grouped together.
Also fix two violations against this rule that we had in our own codebase.
Fixes #672