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
rename require-tothrow-message to require-to-throw-message #296
Comments
I'm worried that it would be less clear that it refers to the |
Interesting, when I read it originally on the readme, I assumed it was a spelling mistake and wasn't didn't know exactly what it was referring to until I read the description. Which I could have interpreted it the same as you said as is. I personally don't think that should/would be an issue, but it could be renamed to something like:
Also, this is inconsistent with other rules (that same concern should apply here too), see
I do not think the other rules should change. I think |
Oh I didn't have the names of those other rules in mind, looks like tothrow
is indeed the outlier. Not sure if the rename is important enough to
warrant the breaking change though
…On Thu, 11 Jul 2019, 19:44 Chris Blossom, ***@***.***> wrote:
Interesting, when I read it originally on the readme, I assumed it was a
spelling mistake and wasn't didn't know exactly what it was referring to
until I read the description. Which I could have interpreted it the same as
you said as is.
I personally don't think that should/would be an issue, but it could be
renamed to something like:
- to-throw-require-message
- require-message-in-to-throw
Also, this is inconsistent with other rules (that same concern should
apply here too), see
current style tothrow style
prefer-to-have-length prefer-tohavelength
prefer-to-contain prefer-tocontain
prefer-to-be-undefined prefer-tobeundefined
prefer-to-be-null prefer-tobenull
prefer-strict-equal prefer-strictequal
prefer-spy-on prefer-spyon
I do not think the other rules should change. I think
require-tothrow-message should be updated to match others.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#296?email_source=notifications&email_token=AD2TI536K73LIITI34WDATTP65WQ5A5CNFSM4H7IEAQKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODZXOQVY#issuecomment-510584919>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD2TI54ISUHQE7KF3N2WLTLP65WQ5ANCNFSM4H7IEAQA>
.
|
I personally think it is. EDIT: I don't think it is worth releasing a breaking change just because of this, but instead adding a deprecation notice to the current rule and adding the renamed rule. Then whenever a breaking change is released, remove the |
@SimenB thoughts? |
🎉 This issue has been resolved in version 23.0.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Would a PR be accepted that would rename
require-tothrow-message
torequire-to-throw-message
?tothrow
is not a word and for those of us using a spell checker in our IDE (webstorm / vscode plugin) it is distracting.I think the PR would not remove
require-tothrow-message
, but rename all instances of it and possibly deprecate the old name.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: