proposed jsdoc requirement #3
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I actually think JSDoc blocks might be an unnecessary overkill in some cases. |
|
I think at the very least requiring exports of a module to have valid jsdoc to be a good idea. AFAIK integrations team already requires this on their projects. Want to weigh in @taavirehemagi @martr ? |
|
@martinraag Looks like the require-jsdoc rule is kind of broken, especially for using it for module.exports (see eslint/eslint#5867). It doesn't have support for just requiring JSDoc for exports, either – it can just be turned on/of for all classes, class methods and/or functions. |
|
This PR is quite old, any change to your dislike of the idea, @mklopets? Any chance that the behavior is now better? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
All js should have valid jsDoc