NonBooleanPropertyPrefixedWithIs: Allow boolean functions - #5285
Merged
cortinico merged 2 commits intoSep 8, 2022
Merged
Conversation
brittanyberlanga
force-pushed
the
improve-NonBooleanPropertyPrefixedWithIs
branch
from
September 8, 2022 21:43
3117ac8 to
28d466b
Compare
schalkms
approved these changes
Sep 8, 2022
schalkms
left a comment
schalkms
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for this awesome contribution! 🙂
cortinico
approved these changes
Sep 8, 2022
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 join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This change builds on top of #4684 which allowed functions with a boolean return type to comply with the
NonBooleanPropertyPrefixedWithIsrule. That change only allowed functions with zero parameters. With this change, I’m proposing that we open up the exception to any function with a boolean return type.For example, something like the following would be considered compliant.
Let me know if there are any reservations around this change. My team found that it was odd that there was this limitation and I thought I’d check out if you all agree as well.