This test/src/rules/extensions.js test should be failing with 2 errors not 1

[millerized]

This invalid test should fail with 2 errors – 1 for .js and another for .jsx.

https://github.com/benmosher/eslint-plugin-import/blob/a5844d57be0c3757248c7b824e4cc9c2c844db33/tests/src/rules/extensions.js#L129-L144

The error that I believe is missing:

{
    message: 'Unexpected use of file extension "jsx" for "./bar.jsx"',
    line: 2,
    column: 22,
},

[ljharb]

We should probably audit all of the tests for this rule to see where the problem is.

[silvenon]

I believe this rule behaves correctly because .js is listed as the first extension under settings > import/resolve > extensions, meaning that ./bar will always try to resolve first as ./bar.js, which exists, so it will stop looking further. Regardless of the jsx: 'never' option, adding .jsx should be necessary in order to target bar.jsx specifically, what do you think?

[ljharb]

Hmm - if that's true, then a second test, that's an exact duplicate but without the first import line, would fail with just one error - the "missing" one referenced above.

[silvenon]

Also without the first specified extension being .js. This works:

test({
  code: [
    'import component from "./bar.jsx"',
    'import data from "./bar.json"',
  ].join('\n'),
  options: [ { json: 'always', js: 'never', jsx: 'never' } ],
  settings: { 'import/resolve': { 'extensions': [ '.jsx', '.json', '.js' ] } },
  errors: [
    {
        message: 'Unexpected use of file extension "jsx" for "./bar.jsx"',
        line: 1,
        column: 23,
    },
  ],
}),

[silvenon]

This might seem like confusing behavior at first, but I see no possible alternative, so forcing the extension if omitting it would not yield the desired result is pretty smart.

[ljharb]

Sounds like we might want to add more test cases, but everything's correct as-is?