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
feat!: assert suggestion messages are unique in rule testers #17532
feat!: assert suggestion messages are unique in rule testers #17532
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for docs-eslint canceled.
|
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.
LGTM. And yes, the consensus was to track the actual messages produced from a rule.
We'll need to hold off on this until we start merging PRs for v9.
Hi everyone, it looks like we lost track of this pull request. Please review and see what the next steps are. This pull request will auto-close in 7 days without an update. |
Hi everyone, it looks like we lost track of this pull request. Please review and see what the next steps are. This pull request will auto-close in 7 days without an update. |
Hi everyone, it looks like we lost track of this pull request. Please review and see what the next steps are. This pull request will auto-close in 7 days without an update. |
Hi everyone, it looks like we lost track of this pull request. Please review and see what the next steps are. This pull request will auto-close in 7 days without an update. |
Hi everyone, it looks like we lost track of this pull request. Please review and see what the next steps are. This pull request will auto-close in 7 days without an update. |
Co-authored-by: Milos Djermanovic <milos.djermanovic@gmail.com>
Just #17532 (comment), then LGTM. |
Co-authored-by: Milos Djermanovic <milos.djermanovic@gmail.com>
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.
LGTM, thanks!
Hi everyone, it looks like we lost track of this pull request. Please review and see what the next steps are. This pull request will auto-close in 7 days without an update. |
Hi everyone, it looks like we lost track of this pull request. Please review and see what the next steps are. This pull request will auto-close in 7 days without an update. |
* main: (25 commits) test: ensure that CLI tests run with FlatESLint (eslint#17884) fix!: Behavior of CLI when no arguments are passed (eslint#17644) docs: Update README Revert "feat!: Remove CodePath#currentSegments" (eslint#17890) feat!: Update shouldUseFlatConfig and CLI so flat config is default (eslint#17748) feat!: Remove CodePath#currentSegments (eslint#17756) chore: update dependency markdownlint-cli to ^0.38.0 (eslint#17865) feat!: deprecate no-new-symbol, recommend no-new-native-nonconstructor (eslint#17710) feat!: check for parsing errors in suggestion fixes (eslint#16639) feat!: assert suggestion messages are unique in rule testers (eslint#17532) feat!: `no-invalid-regexp` make allowConstructorFlags case-sensitive (eslint#17533) fix!: no-sequences rule schema correction (eslint#17878) feat!: Update `eslint:recommended` configuration (eslint#17716) feat!: drop support for string configurations in flat config array (eslint#17717) feat!: Remove `SourceCode#getComments()` (eslint#17715) feat!: Remove deprecated context methods (eslint#17698) feat!: Swap FlatESLint-ESLint, FlatRuleTester-RuleTester in API (eslint#17823) feat!: remove formatters except html, json(-with-metadata), and stylish (eslint#17531) feat!: Require Node.js `^18.18.0 || ^20.9.0 || >=21.1.0` (eslint#17725) fix: allow circular references in config (eslint#17752) ...
Prerequisites checklist
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to an item)
[ ] Documentation update
[ ] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[ ] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofix to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[x] Add something to the core
[ ] Other, please explain:
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
Added logic to the two rule tester classes to assert that no suggestion contains the same hydrated description as a previous suggestion in the same error.
Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
Was the consensus for asserting on the rule's actual reported suggestions or expected? I went with actual to start because that feels more comprehensive. Relevant: #15104
Fixes #16908.