Skip to content
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

lint: add support for custom config files #327

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 5, 2019

Conversation

43081j
Copy link
Member

@43081j 43081j commented Mar 5, 2019

Introduces support to eslint and tslint for --config and -c in package.json scripts for a custom config file.

edit: removed fix comment

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 5, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #327 into master will increase coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #327      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   98.42%   98.47%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          32       32              
  Lines         570      592      +22     
==========================================
+ Hits          561      583      +22     
  Misses          9        9
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/special/eslint.js 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
src/special/tslint.js 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
src/utils/linters.js 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 50775c6...c2d4a73. Read the comment docs.

@43081j
Copy link
Member Author

43081j commented Mar 5, 2019

This doesn't completely fix #292 because their example uses JS. We try to JSON.parse it on our end so we don't support JS configs.

@rumpl
Copy link
Member

rumpl commented Mar 5, 2019

Not sure we want to support js configs...

@rumpl rumpl merged commit 4c54564 into depcheck:master Mar 5, 2019
@43081j 43081j deleted the lint-custom-config branch March 5, 2019 18:46
@43081j
Copy link
Member Author

43081j commented Mar 5, 2019

agreed, i wouldn't. introduces too much complexity 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants