/ eslint Public
chore: update ignore patterns in
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 Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to an item)
[ ] 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
[x] Other, please explain:
docs/**ignore pattern matches directory
!docs/.eleventy.jsdoesn't really unignore
docs/.eleventy.jsfile because the file is in an ignored directory.
This is observable in our CI: https://github.com/eslint/eslint/actions/runs/3717239694/jobs/6304407905
This PR updates ignore patterns in our
eslint.config.jsto re-enable linting
docs/.eleventy.js, and makes a few other updates related to ignore patterns.
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
docs/**ignore pattern to
docs/*. In combination with
!docs/.eleventy.js, this means that everything under
docs/is still ignored, except for
!.eslintrc.jsignore pattern as it had no effect because the flat config system does not ignore dotfiles by default.
docs. The command still lints only
docs/.eleventy.jsfile, but it was supposed to have the whole
docsdirectory as the target while the config file controls which files should be linted. Specifying the exact file in the command was only a temporary solution at a point when this didn't work well.
Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?