feat: add should-be-fine support for flat configs #1505
Merged
+376
−26
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
SimenB
approved these changes
Feb 16, 2024
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 16, 2024
# [27.9.0](v27.8.0...v27.9.0) (2024-02-16) ### Features * add should-be-fine support for flat configs ([#1505](#1505)) ([4cc2a1b](4cc2a1b))
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 27.9.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
This was referenced Feb 16, 2024
37 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This has gone in an alternative direction to #1503 that is based on how
eslint-plugin-jsdocis doing flat configs, and feels a lot simpler - it didn't archive my actual goal of making our configs static, but I'll do that in a follow up.Also it's a little bit messy because our version of
@typescript-eslintdoesn't support flat config but that'll improve once we upgrade as well the structure.I've tested this against a codebase and it seems to work fine 🤷
Resolves #1408
Closes #1503