docs: migration guide entry for no-inner-declarations
#17977
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
✅ Deploy Preview for docs-eslint ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
Rec0iL99
reviewed
Jan 10, 2024
docs/src/use/migrate-to-9.0.0.md
Outdated
| @@ -308,6 +309,21 @@ export default [ | |||
|
|
|||
| **Related issue(s):** [#17488](https://github.com/eslint/eslint/issues/17488) | |||
|
|
|||
| ## <a name="no-inner-declarations"></a> `no-inner-declarations` has a new default behavior with a new option | |||
|
|
|||
| ESLint v9.0.0 introduces a new option in `no-inner-declarations` rule called `blockScopeFunctions` which by default allow block-level `functions` in strict mode when `languageOptions.ecmaVersion` is set to `2015` or above. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| ESLint v9.0.0 introduces a new option in `no-inner-declarations` rule called `blockScopeFunctions` which by default allow block-level `functions` in strict mode when `languageOptions.ecmaVersion` is set to `2015` or above. | |
| ESLint v9.0.0 introduces a new option in `no-inner-declarations` rule called `blockScopeFunctions` which by default allows block-level `functions` in strict mode when `languageOptions.ecmaVersion` is set to `2015` or above. |
nzakas
reviewed
Jan 10, 2024
| function foo () { } // no error | ||
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you add a "to address" paragraph like the other things in the migration guide? It should explain how to retain the old behavior of the rule.
bmish
added a commit
to bmish/eslint
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 16, 2024
* main: chore: Split Docs CI from core CI (eslint#17897) fix: Ensure config keys are printed for config errors (eslint#17980) chore: delete relative-module-resolver.js (eslint#17981) docs: migration guide entry for `no-inner-declarations` (eslint#17977) docs: Update README feat: maintain latest ecma version in ESLint (eslint#17958) feat!: no-inner-declaration new default behaviour and option (eslint#17885) feat: add `no-useless-assignment` rule (eslint#17625) fix: `no-misleading-character-class` edge cases with granular errors (eslint#17970) feat: `no-misleading-character-class` granular errors (eslint#17515) docs: fix number of code-path events on custom rules page (eslint#17969) docs: reorder entries in v9 migration guide (eslint#17967) fix!: handle `--output-file` for empty output when saving to disk (eslint#17957)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Prerequisites checklist
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to an item)
[x] Documentation update
[ ] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[ ] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofix to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[ ] Add something to the core
[ ] Other, please explain:
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
added entry in v9 migration guide for the changes in
no-inner-declarationsrule.Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
Comment of issue 17855