-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix lint #104
Fix lint #104
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Martin Schurz <Martin.Schurz@t-systems.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Schurz <Martin.Schurz@t-systems.com>
From technical standpoint, everything looks good. I do have a question though, are Inspec Profiles expected to adhere to the default cops or should there be an attempt to align with the Inspec Docs/Style Guide: Avoiding unnecessary parentheses in matchers: some examples here: #90 (comment) |
nice catch @deric4. I already disabled I think the best approach is to get this in a state, where we can trust the autofix and end up with consistent code. The best(tm) approach should be to trust the linter completely, since every disabled rule leads to possible ambiguity and we need people to remember the special inspec rules. @chris-rock what do you think? |
I agree that it is confusing to have two different baselines. I would argue that Inspec policies are more geared towards security professionals, therefore it is okay to deviate. In any case we should make sure its the same for cross-policies for our baselines. Personally, I would go with the simpler solution in this case, therefore I prefer |
Signed-off-by: Martin Schurz <Martin.Schurz@t-systems.com>
thank you for clearing this up. The code is now aligned with that decision. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
very nice clean up @schurzi
No description provided.