Two config objects created for JS & globals that could be merged

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Starting with JS, ESM, no TypeScript or frameworks, with browser globals:

@eslint/create-config: v1.8.2

✔ What do you want to lint? · javascript
✔ How would you like to use ESLint? · problems
✔ What type of modules does your project use? · esm
✔ Which framework does your project use? · none
✔ Does your project use TypeScript? · no / yes
✔ Where does your code run? · browser

...creates this config:

import js from "@eslint/js";
import globals from "globals";
import { defineConfig } from "eslint/config";


export default defineConfig([
  { files: ["**/*.{js,mjs,cjs}"], plugins: { js }, extends: ["js/recommended"] },
  { files: ["**/*.{js,mjs,cjs}"], languageOptions: { globals: globals.browser } },
]);

That config could be simplified to:

export default defineConfig([
  {
    files: ["**/*.{js,mjs,cjs}"],
    extends: ["js/recommended"],
    languageOptions: { globals: globals.browser },
    plugins: { js },
  },
]);

I think it could be confusing to users that the recommended config initializer creates two objects when only one is necessary. I could see folks thinking the two are necessary because that's what "ESLint" did for them.

Suggestion: how about combining the objects if possible?

[nzakas]

It's easier with the current logic to output multiple objects. If you'd like to take a stab at fixing it, I'd say go for it.

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Oh, can I be not assigned please? I might eventually have time for this but I've got other ESLint work to do first that might take a while.

[lumirlumir]

@JoshuaKGoldberg Oops, my mistake—sorry about that! I've unassigned it now.

[xbinaryx]

@lumirlumir I'll take a stab at this.