feat(no-standalone-expect): support additionalTestBlockFunctions
#585
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
G-Rath
force-pushed
the
improve-no-standalone-expect
branch
2 times, most recently
from
15ede3f
to
6c3e0b9
Compare
G-Rath
force-pushed
the
improve-no-standalone-expect
branch
from
6c3e0b9
to
74c9523
Compare
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2020
# [23.15.0](v23.14.0...v23.15.0) (2020-06-21) ### Features * **no-standalone-expect:** support `additionalTestBlockFunctions` ([#585](#585)) ([ed220b2](ed220b2))
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 23.15.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
closes #551
closes #354
I've attempted to make this rules implementation a bit nicer too, since it had a slowly growing
ifcondition that I think at least reads a bit better now since it "flows" downwards a bit nicer (imo).@SimenB would you object to adding
padding-line-between-statementswith the config used here?(it requires a newline to be before a
return, and after assignment blocks i.econst).I don't think we have any big offenders, but I find it makes things a lot more readable