Update: add option "allowInParentheses" to no-sequences (fixes #14197)

[danielrentz]

Prerequisites checklist

• I have read the contributing guidelines.

What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to an item)

[ ] Documentation update
[ ] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[x] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofixing to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[ ] Add something to the core
[ ] Other, please explain:

What rule do you want to change?

no-sequences

Does this change cause the rule to produce more or fewer warnings?

more

How will the change be implemented? (New option, new default behavior, etc.)?

new option "allowInParentheses".

Please provide some example code that this change will affect:
What does the rule currently do for this code?
What will the rule do after it's changed?

fixes #14197

What changes did you make? (Give an overview)

Add new option "allowInParentheses" to rule "no-sequences" to opt-in for allowing parenthesized sequence expressions.

Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?

This is the first commit which adds the option and adapts the unit tests.

To be done:

• Agree on option name. Currently allowInParentheses. By default the rule is strict, and users can opt-in for more "sloppiness".
• Currently, the option defaults to false making this a breaking change. Maybe set default value to true? Is this acceptable? Personally, I dislike boolean options defaulting to true.
• Missing documentation. Do you have a pointer where to add this?

[danielrentz]

What about a second option "allowForLoopAfterthoughts" (name taken from no-plusplus)? Can/should be true by default.

Would make the last sentence in the documentation obsolete ("Another case is where you might want to report all usages of the comma operator, even in a for loop. You can achieve this using rule no-restricted-syntax:").

[aladdin-add]

👍 to "allowForLoopAfterthoughts". can you file a new issue please?

[mdjermanovic]

Marked as "evaluating" since the related proposal #14197 doesn't have consensus yet. It needs a champion and one more 👍 to be accepted.

[danielrentz]

allowForLoopAfterthoughts

#14204

[danielrentz]

BTW I signed the CLA yesterday.

[danielrentz]

Marked as "evaluating" since the related proposal #14197 doesn't have consensus yet. It needs a champion and one more 👍 to be accepted.

@aladdin-add how do I find a champion (sorry, this is my first PR in eslint)...

[btmills]

I marked this as accepted now that the issue is accepted. Nice work @danielrentz! I had one idea for the docs, but LGTM either way.

[mdjermanovic]

BTW I signed the CLA yesterday.

The CLA check is still pending. It looks like you used a different email address for commits, so maybe this could help:

https://docs.github.com/en/github/committing-changes-to-your-project/why-are-my-commits-linked-to-the-wrong-user#commits-are-not-linked-to-any-user

[danielrentz]

Oh right, I committed with my company address. I have added this address to my github account right now, is there any information what to do to make the CLA step pass?

[mdjermanovic]

Oh right, I committed with my company address. I have added this address to my github account right now, is there any information what to do to make the CLA step pass?

I think the bot will re-check all commits after the next one.

[mdjermanovic]

Looks great, thanks for contributing!