-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
feat(linter): add allowedExternalImports option to boundaries rule #13891
Merged
meeroslav
merged 5 commits into
nrwl:master
from
yjaaidi:feat/add-eslint-allowed-external-imports-option
Dec 21, 2022
Merged
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
1f557fd
chore(linter): add empty tests
yjaaidi fbf238b
chore(linter): add wip tests for allowedExternalImports
yjaaidi d50512d
feat(linter): add allowedExternalImports option
yjaaidi fcfbb70
docs(linter): add allowedExternalImports option to the ban external i…
yjaaidi 9569a87
chore(linter): tidy up
yjaaidi File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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.
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 comparison by value got me confused for a bit. Can we replace it with just
allowedExternalImports && ...
?Perhaps it would be cleaner to use
elvis + every
to be in sync withbannedExeternalImports
: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.
I just like to avoid the boolean coercion and make it explicit that I am not mistakenly (thinking that
[] == false
just like'' == false
) trying to check that the array is not empty.That said, I'm totally alright with the coercing instead and going with
allowedExternalImports && ...
.Now, concerning optional chaining +
every
, the problem is that it doesn't make it very explicit that we are expectingallowedExternalImports = []
to return true... which actually happens because[].every(() => true)
returns true.That said, the current implementation
!allowedExternalImports.some(...)
doesn't make it more expclit 😅.Anyway, there is a test that makes it clear we are expecting
allowedExternalImports = []
to make any external package import fail so I am ok with any implementation.We can switch to
allowedExternalImports?.every(...)
(which ends up being my favorite).