fix: use correct scope for checking references #1107
Merged
+221
−66
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
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 14, 2022
## [26.2.1](v26.2.0...v26.2.1) (2022-05-14) ### Bug Fixes * use correct scope for checking references ([#1107](#1107)) ([89ab1a0](89ab1a0))
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 26.2.1 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Per #1094 (comment):
Turns out that
context.getScopeis stateful, being based on the same logic that the AST walker follows - effectively it should be through of as an argument likenode, e.g.CallExpression(node, scope).I've chucked in some tests for a few rules, but I don't want to over saturate our tests with the same extensive subset of tests - I'll add a few more in once I've done #1106 because then the logic should be a bit easier to think about anyway (right now it's a little weird as it's still name-based).