This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 25, 2021. It is now read-only.
Refactor object-literal-key-quotes rule #1874
Merged
Conversation
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
nchen63
reviewed
Dec 17, 2016
| let previousState = this.currentState; | ||
| this.currentState = state; | ||
| // For backwards-compatibility only. Old versions of this rule did nothing for method declarations. | ||
| const properties = node.properties.filter(({ kind }) => kind !== ts.SyntaxKind.MethodDeclaration); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we need this filter anymore
|
@andy-hanson thanks! |
5 tasks
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
PR checklist
createFailure#1867 (part of it)What changes did you make?
Rewrote
object-literal-key-quotesto process all properties at once instead of using state on the Walker object. It no longer stores failures in an array, instead adding them immediately.Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
The line
node.properties.filter(({ kind }) => kind !== ts.SyntaxKind.MethodDeclaration);is just for backwards-compatibility. Not sure when it would be OK to introduce a breaking change of this kind, but I don't see why MethodDeclarations should be an exception to the rule. It seems like a result of the fact that the previous implementation usedvisitPropertyAssignment, skipping over MethodDeclarations implicitly.