Chore: don't make Linter a subclass of EventEmitter (refs #9161) #9177
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
blocked
|
LGTM |
|
@not-an-aardvark, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @gyandeeps, @nzakas and @mysticatea to be potential reviewers. |
not-an-aardvark
added
the
do not merge
not-an-aardvark
force-pushed
the
linter-no-eventemitter-subclass
branch
from
a1ee10f
to
38ec20d
Compare
|
LGTM |
gyandeeps
approved these changes
Aug 29, 2017
not-an-aardvark
force-pushed
the
linter-no-eventemitter-subclass
branch
from
38ec20d
to
6510145
Compare
|
LGTM |
not-an-aardvark
force-pushed
the
linter-no-eventemitter-subclass
branch
from
6510145
to
f9d7090
Compare
|
LGTM |
not-an-aardvark
removed
blocked
not-an-aardvark
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 27, 2017
This is a modified version of #9277, which was merged but then reverted later for performance reasons. The performance issues from #9177 have been fixed (`Linter` no longer creates a new map of rules whenever it lints text). The goal of this change is to progress towards being able to remove the `rules` property from `Linter` instances. Unfortunately, this isn't possible yet, since there are a few other modules that rely on reading the list of defined rules.
not-an-aardvark
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2017
This is a modified version of #9277, which was merged but then reverted later for performance reasons. The performance issues from #9177 have been fixed (`Linter` no longer creates a new map of rules whenever it lints text). The goal of this change is to progress towards being able to remove the `rules` property from `Linter` instances. Unfortunately, this isn't possible yet, since there are a few other modules that rely on reading the list of defined rules.
not-an-aardvark
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 10, 2017
This is a modified version of #9277, which was merged but then reverted later for performance reasons. The performance issues from #9177 have been fixed (`Linter` no longer creates a new map of rules whenever it lints text). The goal of this change is to progress towards being able to remove the `rules` property from `Linter` instances. Unfortunately, this isn't possible yet, since there are a few other modules that rely on reading the list of defined rules.
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 updates
Linterto not be a subclass ofEventEmitter. The reasoning for this is described in #9161.None of the inherited
EventEmittermethods are considered part of the public API, but a lot of tests were using them. As a result, this PR is blocked on#9172,#9173,#9174, and#9175, which fix the tests to only use the public API. After those are merged, the tests in this PR will pass.Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
Nothing in particular