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

require-atomic-updates false positive #11194

mysticatea opened this issue Dec 15, 2018 · 1 comment


None yet
1 participant
Copy link

commented Dec 15, 2018

Tell us about your environment

  • ESLint Version: 5.10.0
  • Node Version: 11.1.0
  • npm Version: 6.4.1

What parser (default, Babel-ESLint, etc.) are you using?

  • default

Please show your full configuration:
What did you do? Please include the actual source code causing the issue, as well as the command that you used to run ESLint.

Online demo:

/*eslint require-atomic-updates: error */

async function f() {
    let records
    records = await db.records.get() //→ Possible race condition: `records` might be reassigned based on an outdated value of `records`. (require-atomic-updates)

    g(() => { records })

What did you expect to happen?

No errors.

What actually happened? Please include the actual, raw output from ESLint.

require-atomic-updates warns the line records = await db.records.get().

If I change the db.records.get to db.recordsDash.get or something like, the warning is gone, so I guess that the rule uses the property name as a variable name.

Are you willing to submit a pull request to fix this bug?

I don't have enough time to investigate this for now. I'm sorry.

@mysticatea mysticatea added accepted and removed triage labels Dec 30, 2018

mysticatea added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 30, 2018

@eslint eslint bot closed this Mar 16, 2019

@eslint eslint bot added the auto closed label Mar 16, 2019


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 16, 2019

Unfortunately, it looks like there wasn't enough interest from the team
or community to implement this change. While we wish we'd be able to
accommodate everyone's requests, we do need to prioritize. We've found
that accepted issues failing to be implemented after 90 days tend to
never be implemented, and as such, we close those issues.
This doesn't mean the idea isn't interesting or useful, just that it's
not something the team can commit to.

Thanks for contributing to ESLint and we appreciate your understanding.

@mysticatea mysticatea reopened this Mar 16, 2019

@mysticatea mysticatea removed the auto closed label Mar 16, 2019

@mysticatea mysticatea self-assigned this Mar 16, 2019

@mysticatea mysticatea added the rule label Apr 13, 2019

mysticatea added a commit that referenced this issue May 10, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.