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

Flycheck's ESLint checker should support multiple custom rules directories #1016

Closed
NateEag opened this Issue Jul 19, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@NateEag

NateEag commented Jul 19, 2016

Flycheck currently offers flycheck-eslint-rulesdir to specify a directory containing custom rules.

However, ESLint supports multiple rules directories, by passing the --rulesdir option multiple times.

To support this in the Flycheck checker, I would suggest creating an alias called flycheck-eslint-rulesdirs that is a customizable list, deprecating flycheck-eslint-rulesdir, and handling the case where flycheck-eslint-rulesdirs contains a string when using it to construct the ESLint command.

That should provide the desired semantics, be backwards-compatible, and encourage users to update their configurations appropriately.

Does this sound reasonable?

@cpitclaudel

This comment has been minimized.

Member

cpitclaudel commented Jul 19, 2016

Sounds good to me. Not sure whether we need the deprecation and alias, as opposed to just supporting a string or a list of string in that variable.

Do you want to take a shot at implementing this?

@lunaryorn

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

lunaryorn commented Jul 19, 2016

I wouldn't mind a breaking change. It's easier to just move from an option with a single string to an option with a list of string. Flycheck's always been moving fast in this aspect, I don't particularly care about backwards compatibility.

It'd be great if you could open a pull request :)

@NateEag

This comment has been minimized.

NateEag commented Jul 20, 2016

Sure, I'll take a shot at it.

@lunaryorn - it sounds like you might prefer a breaking change to keep the code simple. Is that accurate?

I'm a backwards-compat guy myself, but if flycheck puts higher priority on simplicity, I can do that.

@lunaryorn

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

lunaryorn commented Jul 20, 2016

@NateEag Yep that's correct. It's just easier to maintain for us that way 😊

Thanks for your help 👍

@NateEag

This comment has been minimized.

NateEag commented Jul 21, 2016

Okay, sounds good. I'll check back in when I have something working.

It may be a little while - pretty busy these days.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment