Breaking: make radix rule stricter

[fisker]

What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to item)

[X] Documentation update
[ ] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[X] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofixing to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[ ] Add something to the core
[ ] Other, please explain:

What changes did you make? (Give an overview)

What rule do you want to change?

radix

Does this change cause the rule to produce more or fewer warnings?
more warnings

How will the change be implemented? (New option, new default behavior, etc.)?

new default behavior

Please provide some example code that this change will affect:

before, radix only check second param is number , this PR only allow integer between 2 and 36 ref: parseInt Syntax

var num = parseInt("071", 37); // valid before, invalid now

What does the rule currently do for this code?

What will the rule do after it's changed?

Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?

[jsf-clabot]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[fisker]

Any chance this get merged?

[kaicataldo]

Apologies for the delay in reviewing this. I'm personally not against this change, though I do think we either need to put it behind an option or release it in the next major release.

Can we update the documentation to make this behavior more transparent for end users?

Finally, we'll need a three more supporters from the team before we can mark this as accepted.

[kaicataldo]

I'll champion this.

[platinumazure]

I'll support this, but as @kaicataldo said, this either needs to be flagged as a breaking change or needs to be put behind an option.

[fisker]

Thank you guys, any further work should I do?

[kaicataldo]

Nope! We just need one more 👍 for the team. Since we're now prepping our next release, I think it's fine to make this a breaking change.

[btmills]

Nice enhancement! I've added my 👍 and marked this as accepted.

[kaicataldo]

LGTM, thanks!

[btmills]

Nice work on this! It'll be a nice enhancement. The implementation looks good as-is, though if you're willing to add it, reporting a separate message for an out-of-bounds radix might be helpful. For example, "Radix must be an integer between 2 and 36 inclusive" or something like that.

Can you also add a test with a non-integer radix so that we don't accidentally allow e.g. 10.5 in a future code change? LGTM once that's done.

[fisker]

Changed message to Invalid radix parameter, must be an integer between 2 and 36.

Add tests, including 10.0 1.6e1 0x10 and 10.5

@btmills

[btmills]

LGTM, thank you for contributing!

[mdjermanovic]

It would be nice to add tests for boundary values: valid 2 and 36 and invalid 1 (37 is already tested).

[fisker]

@mdjermanovic Done 72ef36f

[mdjermanovic]

Thanks 👍

LGTM!

[kaicataldo]

Thanks for contributing to ESLint!