This repository has been archived by the owner on May 19, 2018. It is now read-only.
Fix arrow param locations with flow types #57
Merged
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
This patch corrects the end locations for params in arrow functions which use type params.
Current coverage is 96.92% (diff: 100%)@@ master #57 diff @@
==========================================
Files 19 19
Lines 2922 2923 +1
Methods 0 0
Messages 0 0
Branches 0 0
==========================================
+ Hits 2832 2833 +1
Misses 90 90
Partials 0 0
|
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This patch corrects the end locations for params in arrow functions
which use type params.
I was assuming that the way it is in function declarations is the correct way (location of identifier includes typeAnnotation), but I might be wrong, as here the opposite is expected it seems: gajus/eslint-plugin-flowtype#8
But I also looked at other constructs like ObjectTypeProperties, or FunctionDeclaration, which all include the type in their location. So from my point of view it seems to be the correct way.
No new tests added, as there were enough tests that already covered this case.
Fixes #51