-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
New: extensions property in config #48
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What about adding support for a more generic place for otherwise-CLI options, and finding a way (even if that means a backport) to make "having that object" not break older eslints?
|
||
```json | ||
{ | ||
"extensions": ["ts", "vue"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
given that unknown properties results in an error, wouldn't that mean that adding this config setting to a shared config is a breaking change?
imo, features for shared configs that are breaking changes are not truly for shared configs :-/
|
||
## Backwards Compatibility Analysis | ||
|
||
- Adding the new `extensions` property at top level of configuration files will change the schema of configuration, which is a breaking change. Users using old version ESLint can't use this feature because once they add this property, configuration schema check would fail. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this is an argument against that schema check itself :-/
Hi. I have a question. What is the advantage of this RFC over #20? #20 has been approved and it solves eslint/eslint#10828. Why do you want another way to solve the issue that has been solved? |
Didn't you ask me to send an RFC? Or did I misunderstand anything? |
If you want to add the Therefore, my previous comment was
If you really want to add the |
I'm just going to implement the original issue, and the PR is still in progress so it's different from RFC 20. I can't understand why I need to create a new RFC for that feature. |
Are this issue and RFC 20 related? Or what's their relationship? |
Both the original issue and #20 is the specification for the way people add additional kind of lint targets by config files. |
Hmm...sounds reasonable. I think I did something wrong because of misunderstanding that issue and #20, and I'm going to close. Sorry for wasting your time. |
View Markdown
Summary
This RFC proposes adding one property called
extensions
at top level of ESLint configuration files.Related Issues