Use Object.prototype in examples

[alexreardon]

What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to item)

[X ] Documentation update
[ ] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[ ] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofixing to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[ ] Add something to the core
[ ] Other, please explain:

What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
Updating documentation for no-prototype-builtins

Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?

I thought rather than encouraging people to use {}.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call it would be better to encourage the use of Object.prototype. as it does not create a new object for the purpose of using the newly created objects prototype functions, but rather just borrows the function from the Object.prototype directly.

[jsf-clabot]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[eslintbot]

Thanks for the pull request, @alexreardon! I took a look to make sure it's ready for merging and found some changes are needed:

• The commit summary needs to begin with a tag (such as Fix: or Update:). Please check out our guide for how to properly format your commit summary and update it on this pull request.

Can you please update the pull request to address these?

(More information can be found in our pull request guide.)

[mention-bot]

@alexreardon, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @DrewML and @scriptdaemon to be potential reviewers.

[alexreardon]

It looks like there was some PR conventions I was not aware of. I will update the PR if you guys are happy with the change. Otherwise I won't worry about fixing it up. Cheers

[alexreardon]

Okay, so I accidentally clicked the 'close and comment' button 👎 .

[not-an-aardvark]

Thanks for the pull request!

I think having Object.prototype examples is fine, but some users might still prefer the {}.hasOwnProperty style. Maybe it would be better if we split the three examples to indicate that there are multiple options?

[alexreardon]

Yeah I could add that

[eslintbot]

LGTM

[eslintbot]

LGTM

[alexreardon]

@not-an-aardvark I have updated the PR to include both usages

[not-an-aardvark]

Thanks! To clarify, I actually just meant changing some of the {} examples to Object.prototype, e.g.

var hasBarProperty = Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(foo, "bar");

var isPrototypeOfBar = Object.prototype.isPrototypeOf.call(foo, bar);

var barIsEnumerable = {}.propertyIsEnumerable.call(foo, "bar");

Sorry about the misunderstanding. That said, the wording that you used also works.

[alexreardon]

Oh I see!

As an aside: I have noticed that the []. and {}. shortcuts are used quite a bit in the docs. Would you be open to me extending this pr to include alternative examples above or below every shorthand?

For example no-extra-parens.md would become:

({}.toString.call());
(Object.prototype.toString.call());

or

(Object.prototype.toString.call());
({}.toString.call());

And as you suggested, docs that use multiple examples can have the two styles interleaved

[eslintbot]

LGTM

[eslintbot]

LGTM

[alexreardon]

I have added a commit which fixes all the docs. It turns out there where not that many occurrences. I also prioritised the Object.prototype and Array.prototype usages as they do not create a new Object or Array.

[not-an-aardvark]

LGTM. Thanks!

[alexreardon]

Cheers!