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
check used state when using ternary assignment #2014
check used state when using ternary assignment #2014
Conversation
this.state = { foo: 0 }; | ||
} | ||
render() { | ||
const {foo} = true ? this.state : {}; |
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.
I don't think this should be considered used in the general case - with true
, obviously, the entire ternary reduces to const { foo } = this.state;
- but if the condition isn't "always true", then the state is unused in some cases, so it's appropriate for the rule to warn about it.
You should be unconditionally destructuring out of state.
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.
If I retype the same condition as
if (condition) { const { foo } = this.state; }
the linter would accept this;
but if I type:
const {foo} = condition? this.state : {};
I will get unused field state
, although the two are the same and the state field is unused if the condition is falsy.
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.
I would expect both to be considered unused. Let’s fix that bug instead.
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.
Actually, I don't agree with that, I don't consider this as bug, there are punch of cases where you need to conditionally get field from state.
IMO the linting rule applies on static analysis of code, so is a field will be sometimes used based on dynamic conditions, it should be considered as used.
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.
I can't think of any - you should always be unconditionally extracting from state, and then conditionally using those values.
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.
compare this
you should always be unconditionally extracting from state, and then conditionally using those values.
const { foo } = this.state;
if(condition) {
// use foo
}
with
if(condition) {
const { foo } = this.state;
// use foo
}
you first comment still applies for both cases.
but if the condition isn't "always true", then the state is unused in some cases, so it's appropriate for the rule to warn about it.
but, in the first form when condition is false, I created a variable (foo) although I might not use it at all, I think the second approach would be better for resources.
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.
Performance is the least important concern; creating variables is free; and the cost of a single property get is effectively free as well.
fixes ternary assignment with destructuring
would result in
unused state field foo
, although the field is used.