by

Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
    Kevin Partington
    @platinumazure
    It seems like it should be possible to use the previous (non-comment) token to the opening template literal backtick, and see if that's on the same line as the backtick. That would work for both a generic > and for a template tag, right?
    I don't know how easy that will be to shoehorn into the existing logic, though.
    Toru Nagashima
    @mysticatea
    My position is, I'm fine for using TS-specific type properties of AST in order to fix bugs, if the AST enhancements are well-documented.
    Ilya Volodin
    @ilyavolodin
    @mysticatea is there a place such enhancements can be documented?
    Kevin Partington
    @platinumazure
    I guess another way to word my suggestion is-- let's have the "template tag" (for the purpose of that rule) be the tokens from the tag identifier, through the last token before the backtick. Rather than only the tag identifier
    For a pure JS tagged template, the "template tag" tokens would be just one token, the tag identifier
    so it should work the same as now
    Brandon Mills
    @btmills
    @platinumazure that seems like it should work! Leave it as a suggestion and see if the author picks it up?
    Ilya Volodin
    @ilyavolodin
    That suggestions sounds reasonable to me
    Toru Nagashima
    @mysticatea
    @ilyavolodin I mentioned in https://github.com/eslint/eslint/pull/11698#issuecomment-500145310 and I guess that the documentation hasn't existed yet.
    @platinumazure Sounds good to me.
    Kevin Partington
    @platinumazure
    Okay, I've left a comment
    Ilya Volodin
    @ilyavolodin
    Ok, next PR: eslint/eslint#11726
    There's an open RFC for this PR
    That haven't had any comments since May
    Kevin Partington
    @platinumazure
    Maybe if we get our PR count under control, we could start using the TSC meetings to go through RFCs that need attention. :laughing:
    Ilya Volodin
    @ilyavolodin
    :-)
    Kevin Partington
    @platinumazure

    The lack of comments on the RFC or PR since May suggest that this isn't really a high priority issue from the community. I think we should look at the PR and see if there's any way the use case could move forward (maybe with a different API).

    Should we close the PR just for housekeeping, and note that it could be reopened if the RFC is accepted? (And we would try to review the RFC as soon as we can.)

    Ilya Volodin
    @ilyavolodin
    I'm not sure I would want to accept this RFC anyways. It seems to disable primary feature of ESLint. I understand the need (not really), but I feel like this should be achieved through other means (wrapper around pre-commit hook)
    Brandon Mills
    @btmills
    I'm with @ilyavolodin. I'd rather document the workarounds, e.g. || exit 0
    Kevin Partington
    @platinumazure

    I agree with that as well. I was just trying to provide a proposal to handle the PR without committing to accepting or rejecting the RFC...

    I guess I'll ask this: Does anyone here want to champion the idea of the RFC (even if the eventual implementation is different)?

    :+1: from me to documenting workarounds
    Ilya Volodin
    @ilyavolodin
    :-1: on championing this idea. And :+1: on documentation
    Toru Nagashima
    @mysticatea
    :+1: for documentation
    Kevin Partington
    @platinumazure
    Okay, so should we close the PR and also close the RFC, saying we discussing in TSC meeting and the team came to consensus that this is something we don't want to do (and we'll instead accept PRs for documenting the workarounds)?
    Ilya Volodin
    @ilyavolodin
    :+1:
    Brandon Mills
    @btmills
    :+1:
    Toru Nagashima
    @mysticatea
    :+1:
    Ilya Volodin
    @ilyavolodin
    Ok, so let's close both with the comment to document a work-around solution
    I think that's all the time we have for today
    We didn't get to the RFC issue that @platinumazure mentioned though:-(
    Brandon Mills
    @btmills
    Do we need to assign someone to do the release with @kaicataldo?
    Ilya Volodin
    @ilyavolodin
    Yes
    We need one more person to do the release with @kaicataldo
    Since he is full-time now, I assume his timing is flexible
    Unfortunately, I will not be able to do it tomorrow or this weekend:-(
    Brandon Mills
    @btmills
    I can do around lunchtime tomorrow - I just need to be done by 1:30
    Kevin Partington
    @platinumazure
    Well, the PRs (and RFC) we looked at were older than the RFC blocked by my issue, so it's okay. I'll just queue it for next meeting again
    Brandon Mills
    @btmills
    Hopefully @kaicataldo checks here and confirms one
    Kevin Partington
    @platinumazure
    I can do Friday evening or possibly Saturday sometime
    Ilya Volodin
    @ilyavolodin
    @btmills @platinumazure can you check with @kaicataldo offline to see who's time is lining up?
    Brandon Mills
    @btmills
    I'll re-post in the TSC channel so he sees it
    Ilya Volodin
    @ilyavolodin
    Awesome. In that case, I think we are done for tonight. Thanks everyone!
    Kevin Partington
    @platinumazure
    Thanks! :wave:
    Toru Nagashima
    @mysticatea
    Thank you :wave:
    Brandon Mills
    @btmills
    :wave: thanks!
    Kevin Partington
    @platinumazure
    :wave:
    Brandon Mills
    @btmills
    :wave:
    Toru Nagashima
    @mysticatea
    Hello
    Kai Cataldo
    @kaicataldo
    :wave:
    Kevin Partington
    @platinumazure
    I think that gives us quorum? (I count 7 total TSC members, 2 of whom are absent AND on Non-Attending TSC, so 5 total people who could attend. 4 out of 5 is quorum)