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

requireReturnDescription for valid-jsdoc #1833

Closed
briandipalma opened this issue Feb 13, 2015 · 1 comment
Closed

requireReturnDescription for valid-jsdoc #1833

briandipalma opened this issue Feb 13, 2015 · 1 comment
Labels
accepted There is consensus among the team that this change meets the criteria for inclusion archived due to age This issue has been archived; please open a new issue for any further discussion enhancement This change enhances an existing feature of ESLint rule Relates to ESLint's core rules

Comments

@briandipalma
Copy link
Contributor

I was wondering if adding a requireReturnDescription option to the valid-jsdoc rule would be acceptable? The major reason for documentation enforcement is to specify types in the code. While I like having good descriptions in the documentation I can see that other people might find it a large burden in a legacy codebase.

I might be able to do this over the weekend if it's acceptable

@nzakas
Copy link
Member

nzakas commented Feb 13, 2015

Fine by me

@nzakas nzakas added accepted There is consensus among the team that this change meets the criteria for inclusion enhancement This change enhances an existing feature of ESLint rule Relates to ESLint's core rules labels Feb 13, 2015
@nzakas nzakas closed this as completed in aad54f5 Feb 17, 2015
nzakas added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2015
…-valid-jsdoc

Update: Add requireReturnDescription for valid-jsdoc (fixes #1833)
@eslint-deprecated eslint-deprecated bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 7, 2018
@eslint-deprecated eslint-deprecated bot added the archived due to age This issue has been archived; please open a new issue for any further discussion label Feb 7, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
accepted There is consensus among the team that this change meets the criteria for inclusion archived due to age This issue has been archived; please open a new issue for any further discussion enhancement This change enhances an existing feature of ESLint rule Relates to ESLint's core rules
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants