Add prefer-includes rule
#115
Conversation
|
@nunofreitasbotelho Thanks for picking this up and your patience. Can you add it to the readme too? Example: dd05f68#diff-0730bb7c2e8f9ea2438b52e419dd86c9 |
sindresorhus
changed the title
prefer-includes rule
| const isNegativeOne = (operator, value) => operator === '-' && value === 1; | ||
|
|
||
| const getSourceCode = (context, node) => ( | ||
| // Context.getSourceCode().text.slice(node.range[0], node.range[1]) |
| const patternSource = getSourceCode(context, pattern); | ||
| context.report({ | ||
| node, | ||
| message: 'Use .includes(), rather than .indexOf(), when checking for existence.', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we need the commas here and .includes() and .indexOf() should be wrapped in backticks.
|
Ping @nunofreitasbotelho :) |
|
|
||
| !x.includes === -1; | ||
| !x.includes == -1; | ||
| !x.includes < 0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤔 Did you mean x.indexOf('foo') === -1 and stuff?
| context.report({ | ||
| node, | ||
| message: 'Use .includes(), rather than .indexOf(), when checking for existence.', | ||
| fix: fixer => fixer.replaceText(node, `${targetSource}.includes(${patternSource})`) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we want to support both "includes" and "does not include" cases, this fixer does not cut it. It does not look like it could possibly generate !a.includes(b) right now.
| errors | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| code: `!str.indexOf('foo') === -1`, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is equivalent too (!str.indexOf('foo')) === -1, instead you probably want tests for both of these:
str.indexOf('foo') !== -1->str.includes('foo')!(str.indexOf('foo') === -1)->str.includes('foo')
Same goes for some of the tests below.
|
I'm gonna close this as it's stale. If anyone wants to see this merged, a PR finishing this the last things mentioned here would be lovely. |
Implements #8 with the regex part still missing for now.
Used @jeremyjs's base code with the improvements suggested by @sindresorhus and @jfmengels
here: #70 due to inactivity from @jeremyjs.
Glad to work on it with more improvements that you find worthy.