Add no-identical-alternatives-in-ternary rule
#2430
Conversation
|
I think the rule name should include |
docs/rules/no-identical-alternate.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ | |||
| # Disallows nested ternary expressions with repeated alternatives | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| # Disallows nested ternary expressions with repeated alternatives | |
| # Disallow nested ternary expressions with repeated alternatives |
rules/no-identical-alternate.js
Outdated
|
|
||
| const MESSAGE_ID = 'no-identical-alternate'; | ||
| const messages = { | ||
| [MESSAGE_ID]: 'Replace nested ternary expressions with a logical expression.', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be more specific about what kind of ternary expression it targets.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about Replace repeated alternatives of ternary expressions with a logical expression. or Simplify repeated alternatives of ternary expressions. ?
I'm not very good with rule naming, but I think this is a better name |
axetroy
changed the title
no-identical-alternateno-identical-alternatives-in-ternary
sindresorhus
changed the title
no-identical-alternatives-in-ternaryno-identical-alternatives-in-ternary rule
| /** @param {import('estree').ConditionalExpression} node */ | ||
| ConditionalExpression(node) { | ||
| // Check if the alternate is a ConditionalExpression | ||
| if (node.alternate && node.consequent.type === 'ConditionalExpression') { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should go deeper,
a ? (b ? 1 : 2) : (c ? 1 : 3);a ? (b ? 1 : 2) : (c ? 3 : 1)should also be reported. I'm not sure about the equivalent... but there must be a better way to write?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is too complicated, I don't think it can be done easily.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should ignore this situation, it is almost impossible to happen in the real world.
Or create another rule that names no-complex-ternary to disallow it.
axetroy
force-pushed
the
no-identical-alternate
branch
from
6912aa8
to
8246f20
Compare
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
axetroy
changed the title
no-identical-alternatives-in-ternary ruleno-identical-alternatives-in-ternary rule
axetroy
force-pushed
the
no-identical-alternate
branch
from
d98c86c
to
46c0ba4
Compare
axetroy
force-pushed
the
no-identical-alternate
branch
from
46c0ba4
to
95b18ee
Compare
axetroy
changed the title
no-identical-alternatives-in-ternary ruleno-identical-alternatives-in-ternary rule
|
I have reimplemented it. It is supports multiple lines and complex comments retention. Now it's ready for review @fisker |
| @param {import('eslint').SourceCode} sourceCode | ||
| @returns {number} | ||
| */ | ||
| function findIndexOfQuestionMarkInConditionalExpression(node, sourceCode) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sourceCode.getTokenAfter(node.test, () => ...isQuestionMarkToken)should enough
| 'a && b ? c : 1', | ||
| ], | ||
| invalid: [ | ||
| 'a?b?c:1:1', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
a? b?1:c :1
a? 1: b?c:1
a? 1: b?1:cShould be invalid.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
a ? b ? (1: c :1) fix to (a && b) ? 1 : c
a ? 1: (b ? c : 1) fix to (a || !b) ? 1 : c
a ? 1 : (b ? 1 : c) fix to (a || b) ? 1 : c
This implementation is too complicated
I don't think this is easy to do. It cannot retain original comments.
Rather than implementing such a complex rule, I prefer closing this PR
|
Close because it is too complex to implement edge cases perfectly. |
Close #2153