Add jsdoc to linting rules #223
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #223 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 66.22% 66.22%
=======================================
Files 18 18
Lines 450 450
Branches 87 87
=======================================
Hits 298 298
Misses 131 131
Partials 21 21
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
The production snapshot needs to change because the source map differs.
|
We talked about this offline. I am pretty against this. We don't need JSDoc level documentation in our application repositories. Flow takes care of parameter definitions and return values. Having a simple "commenting on functions" lint rule sounds ideal until it fails hundreds/thousands of times in our application repos. |
|
Maybe we can compromise by agreeing to not approve pull requests that don't add or update comments in the affected area of code? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@evansiroky let's switch it to warnings and then I'll approve 👌
I'm proposing to add this rule to help us better document our javascript code. This PR proposes to add the eslint rule
require-jsdocand thus require docstrings in the following places:I could also include arrow functions, but I figured that'd be excessive.
As you'll notice, a lot of the functions in mastarm remain undocumented and pass the linting test because of the this issue with the
require-jsdoc. It's on their roadmap to fix, but that hasn't happened yet.If we really wanted to go all out on jsdoc, we could also add the
valid-jsdocrule which would force us to do things like annote every param in function arguments. I left that out for now and propose this as a first step.