Parameter Count seems failed in destructuring object parameters

[zymbth]

Describe the bug
Parameter Count seems failed in destructuring object parameters

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. What is the exact code you are analyzing?

function dummyFuncOne({ param1, param2, param3, param4, param5 }) {
  return 'One'
}

const dummyFuncTwo = ({ param1, param2, param3, param4 }) => {
  return 'Two'
}

2. What is the output you are getting?

-  rrd ~ parameter count
   src\views\Test\parameter-count.js
   👉 Max number of function parameters should be 3. See: https://vue-mess-detector.webmania.cc/rules/rrd/parameter-count.html
   function dummyFuncOne has 5 parameters 🚨

   src\views\Test\parameter-count.js
   👉 Max number of function parameters should be 3. See: https://vue-mess-detector.webmania.cc/rules/rrd/parameter-count.html
   function dummyFuncTwo has 4 parameters 🚨

Expected behavior
Correctly count the destructured object parameters.

Screenshots

Used version number of vue-mess-detector: 0.57.0

Used version number of node & yarn: [email protected], [email protected]

[David-Pena]

Failing test added for reference

[rrd108]

@David-Pena it is like that by design, isn't it?

From the code maintainability viewpoint they have 4 and 5 parameters.

I understand the issue, but I want to be sure how we think about this and clearly state that in the docs.

[David-Pena]

it is like that by design, isn't it?

I don't think so, right now I don't remember completely but I think its just misssing the correct logic to identify destructured params

From the code maintainability viewpoint they have 4 and 5 parameters.

I think destructured props shouldnt be limited. In this case its only one param so it shouldnt be reported, what do you think? @rrd108

[rrd108]

When the param is an object - I think still there is a reasonable limit of non optional properties

but for now I am ok handling it as one

[David-Pena]

When the param is an object - I think still there is a reasonable limit of non optional properties

Lets create a separate issue for that change to the rule

[David-Pena]

Do you have any progress in here? @rrd108

@zymbth would you like to send a PR?

[zymbth]

@David-Pena Sorry for the late reply, just got back from vacation. I've been a bit busy lately, try to contribute in the future.

[David-Pena]

This is solved in bbded51