New: Variable Definition Information of Config Files

[mysticatea]

Link to Rendered RFC

Summary

This proposal adds variable definition information of config files to Variable objects.

Related Issues

• Proposal: no-redeclare reports /*globals foo*/ comments if it's redeclaration eslint#11370

[platinumazure]

This looks good to me in general.

Do any of the existing Variable properties need to be deprecated? (Maybe I missed that.)

[not-an-aardvark]

This generally looks good to me, I have a few minor comments.

[mysticatea]

Thank you for the review.

I updated this RFC:

• it removes existing variable.eslintExplicitGlobalComment property in favor of new variable.eslintExplicitGlobalComments property.
• it describes documentation details.
• it describes backward compatibility analysis about that removal.

[platinumazure]

This looks good to me. Thanks!

[platinumazure]

As a note for implementation, I think we could add the new properties in a semver-minor release and remove the deprecated property in a major release, if needed. (Only noting in case this doesn't make 6.0.0.) Does anyone disagree?

[nzakas]

@platinumazure I agree. I don't think there's a reason to do this as a breaking change.

[nzakas]

Make sense to me. Nice work! 👍

[not-an-aardvark]

To be clear, while the core changes in this RFC could be done without a breaking change, modifying the defaults of no-redeclare would require a breaking change, and I think that was the main motivation for this proposal. So we would need to do this before v6.0.0 if we want the no-redeclare change to be in v6.

[nzakas]

Ah, thanks for clarifying. It seems a bit late to try to get another breaking change in for v6.0.0. I'd be in favor of implementing the non-breaking part of this proposal and then waiting for v7.0.0 to update the rule.

…

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:57 AM Teddy Katz ***@***.***> wrote: To be clear, while the core changes in this RFC could be done without a breaking change, modifying the defaults of no-redeclare would require a breaking change, and I think that was the main motivation for this proposal. So we would need to do this before v6.0.0 if we want the no-redeclare change to be in v6. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#17 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACWkiuzyR9Ms03n-ck_CU7i62a17_Qjks5vVqcWgaJpZM4bcJP1> .

--

______________________________ Nicholas C. Zakas @SlickNet Author, Principles of Object-Oriented JavaScript <http://amzn.to/29Pmfrm> Author, Understanding ECMAScript 6 <http://amzn.to/29K1mIy>

[not-an-aardvark]

We already accepted the proposal (pending an RFC) as a breaking change for v6.0.0 in the previous TSC meeting.

[nzakas]

Oh geez, thanks for pointing that out. My mind has been mush since the time change, so I completely forgot about this.

…

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:58 PM Teddy Katz ***@***.***> wrote: We already accepted the proposal (pending an RFC) as a breaking change for v6.0.0 in the previous TSC meeting <https://github.com/eslint/tsc-meetings/blob/3e40976a2ebb9481405d4c3a358bc3191ecd234a/notes/2019/2019-02-28.md#proposal-no-redeclare-reports-globals-foo-comments-if-its-redeclaration> . — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#17 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACWkjpPKjbNVGLsBzzXRyLiTHRNYU0nks5vWVh-gaJpZM4bcJP1> .

--

______________________________ Nicholas C. Zakas @SlickNet Author, Principles of Object-Oriented JavaScript <http://amzn.to/29Pmfrm> Author, Understanding ECMAScript 6 <http://amzn.to/29K1mIy>

[mysticatea]

Hi. Thank you for the feedback.

I labeled this RFC as "Final Commenting" because over 21 days satisfied.
For a reference, the implementation exists on eslint/eslint#11509.

cc: @eslint/eslint-tsc

[btmills]

Makes sense!

[mysticatea]

OK, I will merge this RFC because 7 days after final commenting satisfied and looks no objections.

Thank you very much!