docs: warn against progressive type enhancement in rules #7440
Conversation
|
Thanks for the PR, @JoshuaKGoldberg! typescript-eslint is a 100% community driven project, and we are incredibly grateful that you are contributing to that community. The core maintainers work on this in their personal time, so please understand that it may not be possible for them to review your work immediately. Thanks again! 🙏 Please, if you or your company is finding typescript-eslint valuable, help us sustain the project by sponsoring it transparently on https://opencollective.com/typescript-eslint. |
✅ Deploy Preview for typescript-eslint ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
| :::caution | ||
| We recommend against changing rule logic on whether `services.program` exists. | ||
| In our experience, users are generally surprised when rules behave differently with or without type information. | ||
| Additionally, if they misconfigure their ESLint config, they may not realize why the rule started behaving differently. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This sounds vague. Maybe a specific case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm yeah good point. Agreed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
as possible solution we could recommend to create 2 separate rules one with type-info and one without
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like it! Added :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also gating it behind options is okay, I think.
That way you still have that hard point of a user explicitly opting in to the type-awareness and thus the rule can explicitly crash if it's not provided.
naming-convention does this (the only rule we have that does) for the type-based enforcement of names.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This actually is very relevant to vitest-dev/eslint-plugin-vitest#251. Nice.
Co-authored-by: Joshua Chen <[email protected]>
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #7440 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 87.41% 87.23% -0.19%
==========================================
Files 381 387 +6
Lines 13321 13404 +83
Branches 3938 3962 +24
==========================================
+ Hits 11645 11693 +48
- Misses 1298 1327 +29
- Partials 378 384 +6
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
PR Checklist
Overview
Adds a caution to the docs.
I wonder if this is overkill...?