Switch to JSCS

[XhmikosR]

Since JSHint plans to remove the style changes come v3, or move them to plugins, and we already use JSCS, I guess it makes sense to use that for the current checks.

Thanks to @mikesherov for working on fixing the issues we had upstream!

/CC @cvrebert @mdo

TODO:

• Move camelcase to JSCS requireCamelCaseOrUpperCaseIdentifiers
• Move trailing to JSCS disallowTrailingWhitespace
• Move laxbreak to JSCS "requireOperatorBeforeLineBreak": ["?", "+", "-", "/", "*", "=", "==", "===", "!=", "!==", ">", ">=", "<", "<="],
• Move immed to JSCS requireParenthesesAroundIIFE

[mikesherov]

going away in JSHint 3: jscs-dev/node-jscs#102

[XhmikosR]

@mikesherov: thanks for chiming in. I will replace those with the JSCS counterparts tomorrow.

[XhmikosR]

Currently, tests fail due to the requireOperatorBeforeLineBreak check. So after we fix this, we can merge it.

I also went ahead and used the same target files as JSHint for JSCS to reduce duplication.

[mikesherov]

Right. If you don't care about where the operators go, use no rule (which is the equivalent of laxbreak). Glad JSCS was able to provide a bit of extra checking for you :)

[mikesherov]

Btw, indentation checks for chained function calls is something we intend on adding the next JSCS. Would you be interested in this check? Just want to gauge priority.

[XhmikosR]

@mikesherov: thanks for all your feedback!

I just kept disallowLeftStickedOperators for the time being to match the current behavior. We still need to keep laxbreak for JSHint though.

Improving the checks for chained function calls would be something we could use, but I don't think it's important. I mean, there are so many more important issues on the JSCS issue tracker :)

@mdo @cvrebert: Feel free to comment on the PR so that we merge it.

[cvrebert]

LGTM.