rename require-tothrow-message to require-to-throw-message

[chrisblossom]

Would a PR be accepted that would rename require-tothrow-message to require-to-throw-message? tothrow is not a word and for those of us using a spell checker in our IDE (webstorm / vscode plugin) it is distracting.

I think the PR would not remove require-tothrow-message, but rename all instances of it and possibly deprecate the old name.

[jeysal]

I'm worried that it would be less clear that it refers to the toThrow matcher.
Questions upon reading the rule name might be:
Where does it "require to throw [a] message"? Why would I throw a message?

[chrisblossom]

Interesting, when I read it originally on the readme, I assumed it was a spelling mistake and wasn't didn't know exactly what it was referring to until I read the description. Which I could have interpreted it the same as you said as is.

I personally don't think that should/would be an issue, but it could be renamed to something like:

• to-throw-require-message
• require-message-in-to-throw

Also, this is inconsistent with other rules (that same concern should apply here too), see

current style	tothrow style
prefer-to-have-length	prefer-tohavelength
prefer-to-contain	prefer-tocontain
prefer-to-be-undefined	prefer-tobeundefined
prefer-to-be-null	prefer-tobenull
prefer-strict-equal	prefer-strictequal
prefer-spy-on	prefer-spyon

I do not think the other rules should change. I think require-tothrow-message should be updated to match others.

[jeysal]

Oh I didn't have the names of those other rules in mind, looks like tothrow is indeed the outlier. Not sure if the rename is important enough to warrant the breaking change though

…

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019, 19:44 Chris Blossom, ***@***.***> wrote: Interesting, when I read it originally on the readme, I assumed it was a spelling mistake and wasn't didn't know exactly what it was referring to until I read the description. Which I could have interpreted it the same as you said as is. I personally don't think that should/would be an issue, but it could be renamed to something like: - to-throw-require-message - require-message-in-to-throw Also, this is inconsistent with other rules (that same concern should apply here too), see current style tothrow style prefer-to-have-length prefer-tohavelength prefer-to-contain prefer-tocontain prefer-to-be-undefined prefer-tobeundefined prefer-to-be-null prefer-tobenull prefer-strict-equal prefer-strictequal prefer-spy-on prefer-spyon I do not think the other rules should change. I think require-tothrow-message should be updated to match others. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#296?email_source=notifications&email_token=AD2TI536K73LIITI34WDATTP65WQ5A5CNFSM4H7IEAQKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODZXOQVY#issuecomment-510584919>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD2TI54ISUHQE7KF3N2WLTLP65WQ5ANCNFSM4H7IEAQA> .

[chrisblossom]

Not sure if the rename is important enough to warrant the breaking change though

I personally think it is.

EDIT: I don't think it is worth releasing a breaking change just because of this, but instead adding a deprecation notice to the current rule and adding the renamed rule. Then whenever a breaking change is released, remove the require-tothrow-message rule.

[jeysal]

@SimenB thoughts?

[github-actions]

🎉 This issue has been resolved in version 23.0.0 🎉

The release is available on:

• npm package (@latest dist-tag)
• GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀