Chore: refactor reporting logic (refs #9161) #9168
Merged
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
|
LGTM |
|
@not-an-aardvark, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @nzakas, @platinumazure and @mysticatea to be potential reviewers. |
not-an-aardvark
force-pushed
the
reporting-refactor
branch
from
e44f4a9
to
015d843
Compare
|
LGTM |
|
LGTM |
| loc: location, | ||
| message, | ||
| *fix() { | ||
| yield { range: [1, 2], text: "foo" }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Confused about this test. Seems like it might be using the same setup as the previous test, but the title of this test implies there should only be one fix.
tests/lib/report-translator.js
Outdated
| const reportDescriptor = { | ||
| node, | ||
| message, | ||
| fix: () => [{ range: [-1, 3], text: "\uFEFFfoo" }, { range: [4, 5], text: "x" }] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Confused about this test. The title mentions removing the BOM, but I see the BOM being preserved (I think).
|
LGTM |
not-an-aardvark
force-pushed
the
reporting-refactor
branch
from
63713a1
to
f516143
Compare
|
LGTM |
|
LGTM |
platinumazure
approved these changes
Aug 30, 2017
While investigating the performance impact of this change, I tried modifying the `createReportTranslator` API, but I forgot to change the JSDoc comment back after reverting that modification.
|
LGTM |
|
Thanks for reviewing! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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] Other, please explain:
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
This refactors some of the logic around
RuleContext, as described in #9161.Linterinstance, and the rule ID and severity are added to the report object from a closure. This avoids a circular dependency between modules. It also prevents rules from impersonating or tampering with other rules by using something likecontext._linter.report("some-other-rule", 2, node, "some message").context.reportarguments toLinterproblem descriptors now happens in one place (report-translator). Previously, the logic was spread out betweenRuleContextand various places inLinter, which made it confusing to follow and has caused some bugs in the past. That logic has been refactored now and should be easier to follow.Linter#reportis no longer accessible from the public API, because it no longer exists.Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
Should this be considered a breaking change? I'm pretty sure it doesn't break any documented APIs, but it will break anyone who was relying on undocumented behavior, e.g. calling
Linter#reportdirectly for some reason. We have a very explicit warning that only the documented APIs are public, so I personally don't think this is breaking.