-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 61
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
Add rule note to output message #77
Add rule note to output message #77
Conversation
d19ff01
to
9d8f8fe
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #77 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 95.52% 95.58% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 21 21
Lines 469 476 +7
==========================================
+ Hits 448 455 +7
Misses 12 12
Partials 9 9
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
45c326e
to
6865593
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for expanding the test coverage and for making this contribution!
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)
The rule definition has "Note" attribute which is supposed to contain explanation why the rule terms are concidered not inclusive. It would be beneficial for education purposes if the linter could (optionally) provide in its output not only suggestions with alternatives, but the reason/explanation as well. So the author could understand why they should care about this violation.
What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
Currently the "Note" is not shown anywhere. There is a method ReasonWithNote which is supposed to provide the desired behavior, but it's not used.
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (What changes might users need to make due to this PR?)
No
Other information: