This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 25, 2021. It is now read-only.
Rewrite member-ordering rule #1957
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
andy-hanson
force-pushed
the
member_ordering
branch
4 times, most recently
from
cf61e7e to
39520ca
Compare
nchen63
suggested changes
Jan 12, 2017
| return "constructor"; | ||
| } | ||
| export class MemberOrderingWalker extends Lint.RuleWalker { | ||
| private readonly order: string[] | undefined = (() => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you put the initialization in a constructor?
|
@andy-hanson thanks! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
What changes did you make?
Major rewrite of member-ordering. This is similar to #1874 in that it removes instance state from the class and uses "manual" iteration instead of doing it through the Walker.
Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
Discovered #1956 while working on this.
Wouldn't it be possible to specify the "old" options in terms of the "new" style? The error messages might change a bit, but it could error at the same places.