feat: Add private accessors group to sort-member-config

[krshnpatel]

Summary

While using lit-config extension in our project, I realized that having non-paired private accessors (i.e. private getter with no setter or vice versa) would intertwine the private accessors and private methods when sorting. So I added another group called "private-accessors" which sorts standalone getters first then sorts standalone setters second. See below for a better explanation.

This was the behaviour before this change:

// private accessor pairs group
get _method4() {}
set _method4(arg) {}

// private methods group
get _method1() {} // <-- private getter falls under "private-methods" group
_method2() {} // <-- private method
set _method3(arg) {} // <-- private setter falls under "private-methods" group
get _method5() {} // <-- private getter falls under "private-methods" group

This is the behaviour after this change:

// private accessor pairs group
get _method4() {}
set _method4(arg) {}

// *NEW* private accessors group
get _method1() {} // <-- getters sorted first
get _method5() {}
set _method3(arg) {} // <-- setters sorted second

// private methods group
_method2() {}

[dlockhart]

This seems good to me!

[dbatiste]

@grant-cleary : I vaguely recall us looking at this a bit early on with the editor work. I don't remember whether this was the exact same use case we had or not. Not sure if you remember more...?

[grant-cleary]

@grant-cleary : I vaguely recall us looking at this a bit early on with the editor work. I don't remember whether this was the exact same use case we had or not. Not sure if you remember more...?

Yup, this was the same use case.

[krshnpatel]

@dbatiste @grant-cleary : Is there another issue that we need to deal with before I merge this in? Or this is good to go?

[dbatiste]

I think this looks fine. I seem to remember Grant and I being somewhat dissatisfied with our ordering when we were looking at this previously, but couldn't remember exactly what it was, and whether Grant remembered.

[grant-cleary]

I think this looks fine. I seem to remember Grant and I being somewhat dissatisfied with our ordering when we were looking at this previously, but could remember exactly what it was, and whether Grant remembered.

Yeah, I don't 100% remember why we decided not to fix this. We might not have cared enough? 😕

[svanherk]

🎉 Seems like a great idea!

[ghost]

🎉 This PR is included in version 0.14.0 🎉

The release is available on:

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

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀