(implements #323) Add require-prop-type-constructor rule
#546
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
ota-meshi
requested changes
Aug 11, 2018
| create (context) { | ||
| const fix = node => fixer => { | ||
| if (node.type === 'Literal') { | ||
| return fixer.replaceText(node, node.value) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is need to check if the value type is string.
Hexadecimal literals such as 0xF are converted to numeric literals like 15.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't consider this case, as it seems extremely rare and nearly impossible to get unless you really want to break it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
extremely rare and nearly impossible to get unless you really want to break it.
I think that you are right. I do not think it is necessary to take time and fix it.
ota-meshi
approved these changes
Aug 12, 2018
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR implements rule proposed in #323.
Unfortunately we can't detect all possible scenarios, hence I focused on those that are trivial and should catch most commonly made mistakes. We still allow CallExpressions and MemberExpressions, as we cannot assume those will not represent or return constructor implicitly.