[Draft] | Support flat eslint configuration format for nimble packages #2718
Conversation
Signed-off-by: gokulprasanth-ni <131153319+gokulprasanth-ni@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: gokulprasanth-ni <131153319+gokulprasanth-ni@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: gokulprasanth-ni <131153319+gokulprasanth-ni@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: gokulprasanth-ni <131153319+gokulprasanth-ni@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
||
| attr({ attribute: 'fractional-width', converter: nullableNumberConverter })( | ||
| // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-argument | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This applies to all instances where we leave a line space where you removed the lint suppression.
gokulprasanth-ni
requested review from
TrevorKarjanis,
atmgrifter00,
fredvisser,
jattasNI,
msmithNI,
munteannatan and
rajsite
as code owners
| @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Moved the PR to draft because like described in this comment lets do the nimble transition after AzDo. We should iterate in AzDo first and we don't have the time to review the change in nimble right now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Milan, I want to ensure I understood correctly. Are you suggesting that we update the SLE apps first, followed by the Nimble update? Additionally, in your other comment, you mentioned updating the Azdo pipeline—could you please clarify what specific updates are required there?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you suggesting that we update the SLE apps first
yep!
mentioned updating the Azdo pipeline—could you please clarify what specific updates are required there?
sorry wasn't being clear, the SLE apps is what I meant. Not aware of any azdo pipeline changes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
fyi @gokulprasanth-ni as part of regular dependency updates we pulled in the the stylistic eslint changes (from pre v9) into nimble. We also made some intentional rule tweaks which are now merged in main. Just an fyi when the eslint v9 upgrade is revisited.
Hopefully now there will be far fewer changes in the PRs as the stylistic update was merged separately
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The goal of splitting the prettier update to a separate PR was to reduce the number of formatting changes in this PR. The assumption was that prettier is what caused so many changes but there are still over 100 files changed in this PR many with just formatting changes. Does splitting the prettier update into a separate PR actually make a difference?
…nt-v9 Signed-off-by: gokulprasanth-ni <131153319+gokulprasanth-ni@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: gokulprasanth-ni <131153319+gokulprasanth-ni@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: gokulprasanth-ni <131153319+gokulprasanth-ni@users.noreply.github.com>
3 participants
Pull Request
🤨 Rationale
👩💻 Implementation
javascript-styleguidepackages.🧪 Testing
✅ Checklist