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(eslint-plugin): [unbound-method] check method definition in object literal using longhand form #8637
fix(eslint-plugin): [unbound-method] check method definition in object literal using longhand form #8637
Conversation
Thanks for the PR, @kirkwaiblinger! typescript-eslint is a 100% community driven project, and we are incredibly grateful that you are contributing to that community. The core maintainers work on this in their personal time, so please understand that it may not be possible for them to review your work immediately. Thanks again! 🙏 Please, if you or your company is finding typescript-eslint valuable, help us sustain the project by sponsoring it transparently on https://opencollective.com/typescript-eslint. |
✅ Deploy Preview for typescript-eslint ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #8637 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.21% 87.23% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 251 251
Lines 12305 12309 +4
Branches 3880 3881 +1
==========================================
+ Hits 10732 10738 +6
+ Misses 1303 1301 -2
Partials 270 270
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
}; | ||
const f = o.f; | ||
`, | ||
` |
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.
the window
tests are not related to the bug, just things i came up with while trying to figure out how to satisfy codecov.
@@ -229,37 +237,56 @@ function checkMethod( | |||
(valueDeclaration as ts.PropertyDeclaration).initializer?.kind === | |||
ts.SyntaxKind.FunctionExpression, | |||
}; | |||
case ts.SyntaxKind.PropertyAssignment: { |
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.
this is the only logic change
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! 🔥
PR Checklist
Overview
Just added the same validation to the long form method syntax as already exists for the short form, i.e.