Skip block-indentation rule in embedded templates
#2831
Closed
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
robinborst95
commented
Mar 3, 2023
robinborst95
force-pushed
the
fix/block-indentation-skip-embedded
branch
from
9775984
to
6bea8f8
Compare
robinborst95
changed the title
skipEmbedded option to block-indentation ruleblock-indentation rule in embedded templates
|
Closing this since #2838 has landed instead |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The issue with the
block-indentationrule in embedded templates as reported in #2826 is pretty annoying in existing tests. Turning off the rule entirely is not ideal, as it's really valuable to keep linting this. So, this PRadds an option to skip embedded templates entirely, basically keeping the functionality of the v4 version until a proper solution can be found.disables the rule in embedded templates for now. I have attempted to fix it fully in #2838, but I can imagine that might need some iterating before it can land.I'm not sure if this will be considered a proper way of fixing it, but this is close to being a blocker for me to upgrade to v5, and it's a small change with a great effect 馃檹 .