-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 48
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
feat: support flat config #238
feat: support flat config #238
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #238 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 7 7
Lines 283 291 +8
Branches 78 81 +3
=========================================
+ Hits 283 291 +8 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
@onigoetz Very good |
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.
a note in the readme would be nice
Sure, done :) However, I'm not sure why Node 16 is failing :/ |
@onigoetz the message of your commits must be in lowercase letters |
@ricardogobbosouza sure, done |
Using node 18 have the error |
It is the problem of jest, it is sad, yeah, just skip it for old nodes |
This PR contains a:
Motivation / Use-Case
As explained in #190, ESLint has a new config system.
This is meant to be the future default but it does not work out of the box.
This PR aims to allow the usage of flat configuration for pioneers while being future proof at the same time.
Breaking Changes
None
Additional Info
The new API is documented here: https://eslint.org/blog/2022/08/new-config-system-part-3/
Changes introduced by this PR:
configType
option to allow to switch between the legacy and future way of loading configurationworker.js
(was duplicated ingetESLint.js
as well)Each change is in its own commit, you can review them separately.
This replaces #237.
Once this one is merged I'd happily make another PR for the changes I proposed in tests, but let's not pile everything together.