-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 207
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
fix(eslint-plugin): directive-class-suffix reporting selectorless directives #394
Conversation
Nx Cloud ReportCI ran the following commands for commit e3d6f6b. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights. 📂 See all runs for this branch Sent with 💌 from NxCloud. |
@Directive | ||
class TestDirective {} | ||
`, | ||
@Directive() |
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.
You seem to have removed the @Directive
case, please add it back I think it's worth having just so we know how the linter behaves.
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.
Please also add a comment next to the new @Directive()
case and reference back to the issue discussion
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.
You seem to have removed the @directive case, please add it back I think it's worth having just so we know how the linter behaves.
Hmm, yes I've removed because it doesn't even compile as you can see here:
But, let me know if you want me to add it back anyway.
Please also add a comment next to the new
@Directive()
case and reference back to the issue discussion
Added the link, let me know if we need an additional description as well.
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.
It is parsable TypeScript, so it's still good to understand how our tooling behaves when it exists, right? With the TS compiler being so forgiving it's worth knowing whether our tooling will blow up or not I think (and to be clear I don't think it will but I just don't see the logic in removing the test case as if this code could not exist in someone's codebase)
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 problem. Added it back.
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.
See comments
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #394 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 63.88% 65.60% +1.72%
==========================================
Files 12 10 -2
Lines 443 410 -33
Branches 74 64 -10
==========================================
- Hits 283 269 -14
+ Misses 132 114 -18
+ Partials 28 27 -1
|
1st. commit is the fix for #353.
2nd. commit is a refactor that:
data
property to ensure we pass the correct parameters to the user.In any case, if you prefer, I could split it into 2 PRs.
Fixes #353.