rule object-shorthand "never" should not complain about destructuring assignment

[attekemppila]

What version of ESLint are you using?
v2.3.0

What configuration and parser (Espree, Babel-ESLint, etc.) are you using?
Espree

What did you do? Please include the actual source code causing the issue.

/* eslint-env es6 */
/* eslint object-shorthand: [2, "never"] */

// object initializer

let a = 1, b = 2;

let o = {
    a: a,
    b,                  // object-shorthand error, as expected
    fb: function() {},
    fa() {}             // object-shorthand error, as expected
}


// destructuring assignment

let {a, b} = o;  // object-shorthand error, not expected

let arr = [{a: 1, b: 1}, {a: 2, b: 2}];

for (let {a, b} of arr) {}  // object-shorthand error, not expected

What actually happened? Please include the actual, raw output from ESLint.

  10:5   error  Expected longform property syntax  object-shorthand
  12:5   error  Expected longform method syntax    object-shorthand
  18:6   error  Expected longform property syntax  object-shorthand
  18:9   error  Expected longform property syntax  object-shorthand
  22:11  error  Expected longform property syntax  object-shorthand
  22:14  error  Expected longform property syntax  object-shorthand

✖ 6 problems (6 errors, 0 warnings)

What did you expect to happen?
Rule object-shorthand "never" should not complain about destructuring assignment. Lines 18 and 22 in the example should not produce error.

[alberto]

Maybe I was too quick to label it as a bug, since I just realized you can also use the long form for destructuring too:

let {a: a, b: b} = o;

for (let {a:a, b:b} of arr) {}

Not sure if this should be an option, though.

[michaelficarra]

So... there's no way to get the old behaviour? This probably should have been left in as an option.

[alberto]

Sorry, it's my bad this got merged before we agreed on a decision. :/

@eslint/eslint-team should this rule deal with shorthand in destructuring assignments or is this rule only concerned about object literals?

[ilyavolodin]

Going to reopen this issue. Sorry, my bad for not double-checking issue before merging code change (I actually did a few times and didn't merge the code, but this time around, I forgot).

[BYK]

👍 to @michaelficarra

[mysticatea]

I read the doc, object-shorthand was a rule about object literals (object initializers). So I think making the rule covering destructuring assignments is an enhancement.

Though I don't have any objection, I'd like to separate it to a new issue.

[nzakas]

Agree with @mysticatea. This rule was checking destructuring by default and it should not have. I'm unsure about an option vs. a new rule, but agree that should be a separate issue.

[alberto]

Closing then, since this was indeed a bug.