docs: remove deprecation note from lines-around-comment #15293
Merged
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
This rule was mistakenly marked as deprecated in the documentation. Fixes #15292
mdjermanovic
added
bug
1 task
nzakas
approved these changes
Nov 12, 2021
eslint-github-bot
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Prerequisites checklist
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to an item)
[x] Documentation update
[ ] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[ ] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofixing to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[ ] Add something to the core
[ ] Other, please explain:
Fixes #15292 by removing the deprecation note from
lines-around-commentdocumentation.What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
Removed deprecation from the docs for this rule.
Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
It seems that this was mistakenly added in #14961.