-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 932
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix declaration-block-no-duplicate-properties
reported ranges and refactor to use fix
callback instead of context.fix
#7758
Conversation
…lback instead of `context.fix`
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: 3119006 The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
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 previously I could re-run individual tests that failed due to |
@Mouvedia Sorry for the inconvenience. We (owners) are reconsidering and assessing the Contributors team's permissions for several reasons. I just granted you permission to write since you have been so active recently. Please let me know if you are still having any trouble. 🙏🏼 |
Is one of the reason the fallout of the xz backdoor? Did contributors had too many rights? |
Right, it's one reason. |
Sounds good. Can you add a changelog item for this? I think it's a bug fix. |
I consider it a preference or laziness on our part.
Ill add a changeset, sure. |
declaration-block-no-duplicate-properties
to use fix
callback instead of context.fix
declaration-block-no-duplicate-properties
reported ranges and refacto to use fix
callback instead of context.fix
declaration-block-no-duplicate-properties
reported ranges and refacto to use fix
callback instead of context.fix
declaration-block-no-duplicate-properties
reported ranges and refactor to use fix
callback instead of context.fix
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you. LGTM 👍🏼
#2643
Previously the rule always reported the last duplicate which wasn't the one being removed—if fixed—in the majority of cases.
An example of a case in which the rule did report correctly the duplicate that would be removed, was if the duplicate that remained was
!important
and placed before the last duplicate.i.e. demo
Now it always reports the duplicate that will be removed.
It also helps for the diff between the range of the warning and the range returned by
fix
.