[New] `extensions`: accept both a string, and an object to override it. #555

ljharb · 2016-09-12T07:43:50Z

Fixes #390.

coveralls · 2016-09-12T07:48:58Z

Coverage increased (+0.003%) to 97.797% when pulling 028ad4c on ljharb:extensions_options into bd99bdf on benmosher:master.

ljharb · 2016-09-14T18:14:12Z

@benmosher Now that 1.15 is out, is this ready to be merged? I'd really like to resolve airbnb/javascript#978 :-)

benmosher · 2016-09-14T18:22:06Z

will review ASAP, likely tomorrow morning 😅

benmosher

though I'd like @jfmengels to take a look too.

LGTM though, especially the docs. 😄

jfmengels

I would really like to see an example configuration in the examples section, just to make things very clear.

benmosher · 2016-09-15T11:21:18Z

Ah, fair point @jfmengels. Could probably use the added test case as a starting point.

jfmengels · 2016-09-15T11:19:14Z

docs/rules/extensions.md

@@ -6,10 +6,12 @@ In order to provide a consistent use of file extensions across your code base, t

 ## Rule Details

-This rule has one option which could be either a string or an object. If it is `"never"` (the default value) the rule forbids the use for any extension. If `"always"` then the rule enforces the use of extensions for all import statements.
+This rule has one option which could be either a string, an object, or both. If it is `"never"` (the default value) the rule forbids the use for any extension. If `"always"` then the rule enforces the use of extensions for all import statements.


It's not one option anymore, is it? It's either one, which is either a string or an object, or two, with first a string then an object. Or am I misunderstanding something?

jfmengels · 2016-09-15T11:20:56Z

tests/src/rules/extensions.js

+      options: [ 'always', { js: 'never', jsx: 'never' } ],
+      settings: { 'import/resolve': { 'extensions': [ '.js', '.jsx', '.json', '.hbs' ] } },
+    }),
+


Maybe add a test case with never, for completeness' sake.
I'd also like to see both valid and invalid test cases with this change, if it's not too much to ask.

jfmengels · 2016-09-15T11:23:26Z

That said, this looks pretty good and I like this way of configuring the rule 👍

ljharb · 2016-09-16T08:31:49Z

@jfmengels thanks for the feedback; it helped me find some bugs. Updated!

coveralls · 2016-09-16T08:36:06Z

Coverage increased (+0.005%) to 97.841% when pulling 69e2534 on ljharb:extensions_options into e087ec4 on benmosher:master.

jfmengels

I have a few more comments :s

jfmengels · 2016-09-16T08:43:28Z

docs/rules/extensions.md

@@ -6,10 +6,12 @@ In order to provide a consistent use of file extensions across your code base, t

 ## Rule Details

-This rule has one option which could be either a string or an object. If it is `"never"` (the default value) the rule forbids the use for any extension. If `"always"` then the rule enforces the use of extensions for all import statements.
+This rule either takes one string option, one object option, or a string and an object option. If it is the string `"never"` (the default value) the rule forbids the use for any extension. If the string `"always"` then the rule enforces the use of extensions for all import statements.


If it is the string "never" (the default value)
-->
If it is the string"never"` (the default value), then
(for consistency)

If the string "always" then the rule
-->
If it is the string "always" then the rule

jfmengels · 2016-09-16T08:49:42Z

src/rules/extensions.js

@@ -37,15 +39,15 @@ module.exports = function (context) {
    const extension = path.extname(resolvedPath || importPath).substring(1)

    if (!extension || !endsWith(importPath, extension)) {
-      if (isUseOfExtensionEnforced(extension)) {
+      if (isUseOfExtensionRequired(extension) && !isUseOfExtensionForbidden(extension)) {


You could compute the value for the extension modifiers[extension] || defaultConfig once, instead of recomputing it several times (nitpick)

Do you just mean, cache it per-extension?

Sure, can-do.

Hmm, not cache per-se, though I don't see a reason why not. I was thinking of computing the value of it before line 41, as you will use the result later

oh, that's true. let me do that.

This change may not even be worth it overall tho - the tests are failing in Travis because the object is not extensible. Which do you prefer - remove the last commit; rework it to pass with has; or rework it to pass without has?

What are the reasons that externals.hasOwnProperty(key) could break? Is that just when externals is nil?
If you feel like it's better to have it, keep it, I'm not that against it, just didn't see the value if it was just to check if externals[key] exists.

so, the reason bracket access and in won't work is because someone could define an extension named "toString" or "hasOwnProperty" or similar. The reason to avoid Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call is because that relies on both Function#call and Object#hasOwnProperty being undisturbed in the environment. Using has is robust against both.

k, tests should be passing now

(deleted and moved comment to line in question as a review)

jfmengels · 2016-09-16T21:19:53Z

LGTM! (if the tests pass obviously)
I'm letting @benmosher take a last look

ljharb · 2016-09-16T21:29:43Z

hm, now I'm getting failures that are unrelated to my branch/this rule, that I can't reproduce locally.

ljharb · 2016-09-16T21:37:34Z

@benmosher any idea why the tests are getting "duplicate export" errors for a rule that I'm not changing?

ljharb · 2016-09-16T21:42:16Z

@benmosher actually i just reprod it locally on master when i rm -rf node_modules && npm install.

It might be an espree version that updated to use Acorn v4, so that it's now erroring out on syntax errors for duplicates in places where it wasn't before? If so, the solution is probably to delete or modify the test cases.

jfmengels · 2016-09-16T22:25:47Z

I agree it sounds like an Espree error. I made a fix in #565

benmosher · 2016-09-17T20:48:35Z

resolvers/webpack/index.js

@@ -265,7 +266,7 @@ function findExternal(source, externals, context) {

  // else, vanilla object
  for (var key in externals) {
-    if (!externals.hasOwnProperty(key)) continue
+    if (!has(externals, key)) continue


(restarted as an explicit line review, mostly out of curiosity + to gain familiarity with the new feature)

So, I'm not anti-dependencies in general, but I don't understand why

someone would have file extensions of toString or hasOwnProperty

someone would be surprised if things are broken when they monkeypatch JS core functions

Am I correct that these are the cases where has matters over just a plain ol' hasOwnProperty call or in operator? Because if that's true, I'd still like to revert to hasOwnProperty or really, just extension in modifiers because these are well-understood JS core idioms, and in this specific case, not practically distinguishable.

Looks ready to , other than this, though. 😄 Thanks to both of you for working through @jfmengels' feedback, too!

The first one, I also don't know why someone would do it, but given that it's a possibility, that would be a really silly reason for this package to break, don't you think?

As to the second, for a tool like an eslint plugin, that's a stronger case, since it won't be running in browser environments, or environments with unknown third-party code. However, the idea that it's acceptable for one's code to be broken because someone else did something bad, foolish, or simply unexpected mystifies me - as long as my code runs in a pristine environment, nothing that happens afterwards can break it. This seems like a pretty important property to me.

I'll of course remove the dependency if you insist, but I think this is still strictly better because you don't have to think about all these edge cases. I do not think in or hasOwnProperty are well-understood idioms, which is why this problem keeps coming up in libs all over the place, and why has exists.

(@benmosher let me know your final call, and i'll rebase out the last commit if needed)

Fair points. It's not a huge deal either way, or it wouldn't be so easy to have this back and forth. 😄

I hear what you're saying, and maybe one day all our key checks turn into has calls, but I don't think today is that day.

I didn't realize the has part was a separate commit -- I'll just go ahead and merge the first one.

Agh, nevermind, it's bundled with some other stuff. I'll just keep it for now. 😁

coveralls · 2016-09-18T00:22:30Z

Coverage increased (+0.008%) to 97.844% when pulling f507ff3 on ljharb:extensions_options into 12bf6da on benmosher:master.

jfmengels · 2016-09-20T10:02:40Z

Yay! Thanks @ljharb! 🎉

[New] extensions: accept both a string, and an object to override it.

daf38ac

Fixes import-js#390.

ljharb mentioned this pull request Sep 12, 2016

extensions: how to specify a default while specifying granular extensions? #390

Closed

benmosher mentioned this pull request Sep 12, 2016

release v1.15.0 #556

Merged

4 tasks

benmosher added this to the 1.16.0 milestone Sep 13, 2016

glennreyes mentioned this pull request Sep 14, 2016

Error: Cannot read property 'type' of null AtomLinter/linter-eslint#702

Closed

benmosher approved these changes Sep 15, 2016

View reviewed changes

jfmengels requested changes Sep 15, 2016

View reviewed changes

ljharb force-pushed the extensions_options branch from 028ad4c to 69e2534 Compare September 16, 2016 08:31

jfmengels requested changes Sep 16, 2016

View reviewed changes

Cache extension settings using has.

f507ff3

ljharb force-pushed the extensions_options branch 2 times, most recently from a0bb733 to bea0576 Compare September 16, 2016 21:15

jfmengels approved these changes Sep 16, 2016

View reviewed changes

ljharb force-pushed the extensions_options branch from bea0576 to 80cd6ac Compare September 16, 2016 21:30

ljharb mentioned this pull request Sep 16, 2016

tests broken on master #564

Closed

jfmengels mentioned this pull request Sep 16, 2016

Fix #564: Fix tests not running due to Espree bump #565

Merged

benmosher requested changes Sep 17, 2016

View reviewed changes

ljharb force-pushed the extensions_options branch from 80cd6ac to f507ff3 Compare September 18, 2016 00:18

benmosher approved these changes Sep 20, 2016

View reviewed changes

benmosher merged commit f507ff3 into import-js:master Sep 20, 2016

benmosher added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 20, 2016

Merge remote-tracking branch 'ljharb/extensions_options' (#555)

c45fdc3

ljharb deleted the extensions_options branch September 20, 2016 15:43

This was referenced Apr 15, 2018

Update eslint-plugin-import to 2.12.0 sbardian/DebtTrackerAPI#25

Merged

Update dependency eslint-plugin-import to v2.11.0 Urigo/tortilla#68

Merged

MaxMood96 mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2023

[Snyk] Fix for 1 vulnerabilities MaxMood96/eslint-plugin-import#25

Open

chenyueyan-code mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2023

[Snyk] Security upgrade semver from 5.7.1 to 7.5.2 chenyueyan-code/eslint-plugin-import#1

Open

MaxMood96 mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2023

[Snyk] Fix for 1 vulnerabilities MaxMood96/eslint-plugin-import#27

Open

Saroni11 mentioned this pull request Jul 25, 2023

[Snyk] Upgrade semver from 5.7.2 to 7.5.3 Saroni11/eslint-plugin-import#2

Open

[New] extensions: accept both a string, and an object to override it. #555

[New] extensions: accept both a string, and an object to override it. #555

Conversation

ljharb commented Sep 12, 2016

coveralls commented Sep 12, 2016 • edited

ljharb commented Sep 14, 2016 • edited

benmosher commented Sep 14, 2016

benmosher left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jfmengels left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

benmosher commented Sep 15, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jfmengels commented Sep 15, 2016

ljharb commented Sep 16, 2016

coveralls commented Sep 16, 2016 • edited

jfmengels left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jfmengels Sep 16, 2016 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ljharb Sep 16, 2016 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

benmosher Sep 17, 2016 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jfmengels commented Sep 16, 2016

ljharb commented Sep 16, 2016

ljharb commented Sep 16, 2016

ljharb commented Sep 16, 2016 • edited

jfmengels commented Sep 16, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ljharb Sep 17, 2016 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ljharb Sep 18, 2016 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

coveralls commented Sep 18, 2016 • edited

jfmengels commented Sep 20, 2016

[New] `extensions`: accept both a string, and an object to override it. #555

[New] `extensions`: accept both a string, and an object to override it. #555

coveralls commented Sep 12, 2016 •

edited

ljharb commented Sep 14, 2016 •

edited

coveralls commented Sep 16, 2016 •

edited

jfmengels Sep 16, 2016 •

edited

ljharb Sep 16, 2016 •

edited

benmosher Sep 17, 2016 •

edited

ljharb commented Sep 16, 2016 •

edited

ljharb Sep 17, 2016 •

edited

ljharb Sep 18, 2016 •

edited

coveralls commented Sep 18, 2016 •

edited