Fix: indent regression with function calls (fixes #7732, fixes #7733)
#7734
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
not-an-aardvark
added
accepted
|
LGTM |
|
@not-an-aardvark, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @gyandeeps, @vitorbal and @BYK to be potential reviewers. |
platinumazure
approved these changes
Dec 12, 2016
not-an-aardvark
force-pushed
the
indent-again
branch
from
e1b139b
to
dab1861
Compare
|
LGTM |
eslint-deprecated
bot
added
the
archived due to age
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to item)
[x] Bug fix
See #7732 and #7733
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
This fixes a regression in
indentin which if a configuration did not specify a value for theCallExpressionoption, it would get interpreted asCallExpression: firstfor object and array arguments.Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
I think we should add some additional fixtures or smoketests to the indent rule, even if the fixture contains a large codebase in itself. The rule has several hundred tests, but it seems like we're still missing cases. If we add more fixtures, we can be more confident that a particular change isn't going to break anything.
Also, I'm wondering if it would be possible to separate out the breaking parts of #7618 and land the indent rewrite without waiting for a major update. It looks like the indent rule is getting difficult to effectively maintain -- we've broken things the last few times we've tried to change it.