Rule no watch#51
Conversation
igorkamyshev
left a comment
igorkamyshev
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for your contribution, it's a great help 💙
I've left some questions about the code and the documentation.
In general, I like it. I think we can release this rule in 0.4.0 on the next week.
| @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ | |||
| const event = { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's add some smoke cases to correct test. E.g. sample({ ... }), `forward({...}), etc.
|
Made all necessary changes. |
igorkamyshev
left a comment
igorkamyshev
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great job!
I think, we are ready to merge it. I've left some comments about test-cases. Once you fix it, I'll merge PR.
| .map(readExampleForTheRule) | ||
| .map((result) => ({ | ||
| ...result, | ||
| errors: [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This pattern leads to hard debugging. Could you split incorrect test-cases and put it by files with only one error?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you mean that for every incorrect case there should be a separate file?
1 error per file
For example: effects has 5 cases => 5 files
Am I right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm, in this case up to you. I think, it's easier to debug in case of broken tests, but I can be wrong here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You right. I choose a solution in the middle. No more than 2 errors per case.
|
Nice. I'll try to fix it asap 🙂 |
|
Let me know, when you'll be ready to merge. For me, this PR looks good. |
|
I'm ready to merge🙃 |
|
Thanks! Will be released in a week with |
|
Thank u too! |
2 participants
close #48