Skip to content
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(docs): detect typescript alias rules and mark them as supported #3779

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 20, 2024

Conversation

Sysix
Copy link
Contributor

@Sysix Sysix commented Jun 19, 2024

Some tpyescript rules are extensions of the core eslint rules.

Now we mark them as supported :)

Maybe add a info for the user about this behavior?

Some discord discussion:
https://discord.com/channels/1079625926024900739/1080712072012238858/1226407188650659845

Current State

Found Aliases:

  • default-param-last
  • max-params
  • no-array-constructor
  • require-await
  • no-dupe-class-members
  • no-empty-function
  • no-loss-of-precision
  • no-redeclare
  • no-useless-constructor

Todo: why im getting following output:

👀 typescript/require-await is implemented but not found in their rules
👀 tree-shaking/no-side-effects-in-initialization is implemented but not found in their rules

Copy link

graphite-app bot commented Jun 19, 2024

Your org has enabled the Graphite merge queue for merging into main

Add the label “merge” to the PR and Graphite will automatically add it to the merge queue when it’s ready to merge. Or use the label “hotfix” to add to the merge queue as a hot fix.

You must have a Graphite account and log in to Graphite in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link.

@Sysix Sysix changed the title fix(codegen): detect typescript alias rules and mark them as supported fix(docs): detect typescript alias rules and mark them as supported Jun 19, 2024
@Boshen Boshen merged commit a5e0f22 into oxc-project:main Jun 20, 2024
13 checks passed
Boshen pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 5, 2024
…status (#4654)

Closes #4085 

This issue seemed to have been addressed in #3779 , but partially
reverted in #3813 ? 🤔

Since I wasn't aware of these changes, I've just checked the current
implementation through the review requests in #4611 and refactored as
the original author.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants