Update: improve report location for no-trailing-spaces (fixes #12315) #12477
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
eslint-deprecated
bot
added
the
triage
|
I'm okay with accepting this as a bugfix. |
platinumazure
added
accepted
platinumazure
approved these changes
Oct 22, 2019
This was referenced Nov 9, 2019
This was referenced Mar 11, 2020
This was referenced Mar 26, 2020
This was referenced Apr 3, 2020
eslint-deprecated
bot
added
the
archived due to age
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to item)
[X] Changes an existing rule #12315
Reports the full location (start+end) of trailing spaces.
Before this fix:
After this fix:
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
Added the
endto the location.Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
It looks a bit unusual to read from the
locationto calculate therange, but I didn't change that. Tried a version with intermediate variables and it didn't add any clarity (was the opposite, actually).This is a kind of enhancement, but I think it could be processed as a bug fix (i.e. accepted with 1 confirmation).