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

Configuration of eslint #875

Closed
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@owanturist

owanturist commented Jun 20, 2017

Hello! Thanks for great language/tool/ecosystem/world.. !

Some days ago I have researched source code of elm-lang/core and I found eslint configuration. When I verified native code with this config I understood that eslint was disabled (995 problems: 739 errors, 256 warnings).

I think eslint is great tool which can increase quality of code and prevent errors. So I prepared several of pull requests and the first of them it is configuration of eslint with ignore and editorconfig (because I didn't want change settings of code editor every time while I wrote that pull requests). I divided commits with different layers of changes: some of them change rules, another change the comment format, etc.. If any layer will not meet expectations I'll just remove commit with the layer.

I want to help with making of pure and clear native code with checking of anything by eslint and this PR will make opportunity of this more realistic.

@process-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@process-bot

process-bot Jun 20, 2017

Thanks for the pull request! Make sure it satisfies this checklist. My human colleagues will appreciate it!

Here is what to expect next, and if anyone wants to comment, keep these things in mind.

process-bot commented Jun 20, 2017

Thanks for the pull request! Make sure it satisfies this checklist. My human colleagues will appreciate it!

Here is what to expect next, and if anyone wants to comment, keep these things in mind.

@evancz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@evancz

evancz Aug 1, 2017

Member

I don't think I want to do this. I'm okay with the current process, and I sometimes do odd things for performance or asset size that I would not want to be "against the rules"

I also know that I'm not super familiar with this tooling, so it is very likely that if it was merged, it would get out of date and end up not being used anyway.

Member

evancz commented Aug 1, 2017

I don't think I want to do this. I'm okay with the current process, and I sometimes do odd things for performance or asset size that I would not want to be "against the rules"

I also know that I'm not super familiar with this tooling, so it is very likely that if it was merged, it would get out of date and end up not being used anyway.

@evancz evancz closed this Aug 1, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment