Add ignoreSelectors: [] to selector-max-compound-selectors

[FloEdelmann]

Which issue, if any, is this issue related to?

Closes #7536.

Is there anything in the PR that needs further explanation?

I don't think ignoring :not should also ignore contents of it.

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 411ed1e

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
stylelint	Minor

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[ybiquitous]

Thanks for the pull request. Can you add the option to the rule's README?

[Mouvedia]

question
major

How should '.foo .baz .bar.quz {}' behave for 2 ignore [".bar", ".quz"]?
i.e. does it remove one by one from the compound selector or does it skip it if it's not exactly a match?
Either way is fine with me but it needs to be documented either with a > [!NOTE] or an example in the README.

[Mouvedia]

@FloEdelmann ping

[ybiquitous]

See #7544 (review)

[Mouvedia]

@ybiquitous should we move on and leave the note for later?
Or push it to the next version?

[ybiquitous]

@Mouvedia Good point. I think adding a not is a good idea to reduce people's confusion.

In the example you suggested,

{
  "selector-max-compound-selectors": [2, {"ignoreSelectors": [".bar", ".quz"]}]
}

.foo .baz .bar.quz {}

it should be considered as:

.foo .baz {} /* ".bar" and ".quz" are ignored */

because it seems easier to implement by using the current selector parser (postcss-selector-parser).

[Mouvedia]

Whatever the statu quo is, I am fine with it; but it needs to have a pass/fail example or a note.
It's not a blocker so it could be punted to another PR.

[ybiquitous]

Although it's not a blocker, I think adding a note in this PR is preferable.

[ybiquitous]

@Mouvedia I think adding a code example instead of a note is enough, but what do you think?

@FloEdelmann I would like to include this PR in the next version. If you don't have time, I'll push additional commits instead.

[ybiquitous]

[suggest] I found that we can remove the previousNodeWasCompoundSeparator variable outside the each loop by using the index second argument. As a result, we can put the ignoring code in one if condition.

[FloEdelmann]

@ybiquitous Sorry for not responding. I currently don't have much time to work on this PR, so please go ahead and edit to your liking!

[Mouvedia]

@Mouvedia I think adding a code example instead of a note is enough, but what do you think?

Either one is fine.

[ybiquitous]

I pushed additional commits.

@Mouvedia Can you take a look again?

[ybiquitous]

I bumped postcss-selector-parser and removed the patch (91c2a8e) since the new version has been released:
https://github.com/postcss/postcss-selector-parser/releases/tag/v6.0.16

[Mouvedia]

All of the changes I have requested are non-blocking.
Feel free to integrate them at your convenience.

LGTM

[ybiquitous]

Thank you for creating and reviewing the pull request!

[FloEdelmann]

Thanks for bringing this over the finish line!

[Mouvedia]

@ybiquitous we may have missed something apparently.
relevant ref: #7544 (comment)

for config: [2, { ignoreSelectors: ['.ignored'] }],
and '.foo .bar > .ignored.qux {}'
what would you expect to happen?

I would expect the compound selector to not be ignored and hence end up with 3 and the test to fail instead of passing currently. Am i wrong?
Should we replace the current example to illustrate the unexpected behaviour?
e.g. change the misleading

stylelint/lib/rules/selector-max-compound-selectors/README.md

Line 117 in 5078666

.foo .bar > .ignored.ignored {}

to .foo .bar > .ignored.qux {}

---

Also even more baffling .foo .bar > .qux.ignored {} fails but .foo .bar > .ignored.qux {} doesn't. That's seems inconsistent to me.
i.e. either both fails or both passes ('.ignored' doesn't mean startsWith)

[ybiquitous]

@Mouvedia Thanks, your concern is right. We have to fix the case.

The following makes sense to me, so I'll open a follow-up PR soon:

.foo .bar > .ignored.qux {}
.foo .bar > .qux.ignored {}
/* considered as ↓ */
.foo .bar > .qux {}

[ybiquitous]

Opened follow-up PR #7559