New option proposal for requireObjectKeysOnNewLine

[ljharb]

Per #5667 (comment)

The JSCS rule requireObjectKeysOnNewLine had an allExcept: ['sameLine'] option, that eslint currently lacks. The idea was to configure it so that the following code warned:

var obj = {
  foo: "foo", bar: "bar", baz: "baz"
};
var obj = {
  foo: "foo", bar: "bar",
  baz: "baz" };
var obj = {
  foo: "foo", bar: "bar",
  baz: "baz"
};
var obj = { foo: "foo",
  bar: "bar",
  baz: "baz"
};

and only the following did not:

var obj = { foo: "foo", bar: "bar", baz: "baz" };
var obj = {
  foo: "foo",
  bar: "bar",
  baz: "baz"
};

The allowMultiplePropertiesPerLine isn't quite the same thing. Can an option be added to support this behavior from jscs?

[platinumazure]

Marked as enhancement since there is a separate feature request issue (#5667) for the rule itself. Feel free to change the labels if I goofed.

[vitorbal]

I mentioned this in #5667 (comment) already, but just to make sure this doesn't get lost:

The allowMultiplePropertiesPerLine option follows exactly the behavior of the allExcept: ["sameLine"] option from JSCS. When the option is present, both of the following are valid:

var obj = {
  foo: "foo", bar: "bar", baz: "baz"
};

var obj = { foo: "foo", bar: "bar", baz: "baz" };

You will notice that their example for "good" when that option is present also has the curly braces on separate lines.
I tested this against JSCS 3.0.3 just to be sure and can confirm it's true.

So what you're proposing would be a new option, and not a port of the JSCS option.

[ljharb]

Thanks for clarifying - in that case, I misunderstood the previous jscs behavior to be sufficient for my use cases. New option it is!

[ljharb]

Essentially what I want, then, is "either all on one line, or everything on its own line" - meaning, if it can't fit on one line, i never want multiples on the same line. I'm not sure what a good option name would be.

[mysticatea]

I'm seeing a separate rule for line breaks inside braces: #6072

[vitorbal]

True! I think it looks like it would satisfy what you want, @ljharb?

[ljharb]

Yes, absolutely the combination would work for me :-)

Feel free to close this in favor of #6072, otherwise I'll leave this open until the other one is closed.

[ljharb]

Seems fixed by #6223