Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix: use option.cwd to resolve shared config #11294

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Fix: use option.cwd to resolve shared config #11294

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

yaodingyd
Copy link

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

[ ] 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
[x] Other, please explain:

Add additional fix to #7328

What changes did you make? (Give an overview)

Add cwd passed from CLIEngine to resolve shared config.

When 7328 was closed, the requested change is partial done: baseConfig.extends is resolved not to __dirname but process.cwd(), however it misses the part it can also be resolved to cwd passed from CLIEngine options. This implementation adds resolve to cwd configured by user.

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

@jsf-clabot
Copy link

jsf-clabot commented Jan 19, 2019

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@eslint-deprecated eslint-deprecated bot added the triage An ESLint team member will look at this issue soon label Jan 19, 2019
@yaodingyd yaodingyd changed the title use option.cwd to resolve shared config Fix: use option.cwd to resolve shared config Jan 19, 2019
@not-an-aardvark
Copy link
Member

Hi, thanks for the PR. May you please fill out the bug report template or provide a reproducible example where ESLint works incorrectly? From your commit message it seems like this is a bugfix, but I'm not sure I understand the bug that it's attempting to fix.

The logic that you're modifying may be about to significantly change and is quite complicated, so I'm hesitant to make it more complex at this point given that the current behavior has apparently been in place for several years.

@yaodingyd
Copy link
Author

@not-an-aardvark The RFC is exactly what I want to achieve. Thank you!

@yaodingyd yaodingyd closed this Jan 20, 2019
@eslint-deprecated eslint-deprecated bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jul 20, 2019
@eslint-deprecated eslint-deprecated bot added the archived due to age This issue has been archived; please open a new issue for any further discussion label Jul 20, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
archived due to age This issue has been archived; please open a new issue for any further discussion triage An ESLint team member will look at this issue soon
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants