feat(rule): add new Rule RelativePathExternalResourcesRule #725
Conversation
wKoza
force-pushed
the
relativeUrlPrefixRule
branch
from
c001971
to
209bb80
Compare
wKoza
force-pushed
the
relativeUrlPrefixRule
branch
from
209bb80
to
ecb8cd5
Compare
| super(sourceFile, options); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| visitClassDecorator(decorator: ts.Decorator) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This method can be simplified if you use visitNgComponent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using visitNgComponent was my first thought. Unfortunately, I can't access to 'templateUrl' et 'styleUrls'. It seams more efficient with inline template.
| it('should fail when a relative URL is prefixed by ../', () => { | ||
| const source = ` | ||
| @Component({ | ||
| templateUrl: '.././foobar.html' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Excuse me for the misleading comment last time, to me it makes sense to throw a warning on ./../ and succeed on ../. The prefix in the first case seem redundant.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The style guide Angular says:
Why? A component relative URL requires no change when you move the component files, as long as the files stay together.
I understood that like 'in the same folder' (mainly in an Angular CLI environment) but, indeed, it can lead to different interpretations.
Our rationale is when you move the component files. So, we should accept all relative paths.
In my IDE, if I move a component with a relative url, my IDE fixes the new path automatically.
I agree that ./../ is unclean but, for me, it's the same thing than ../.
Do you know what I mean ? I can fix it quickly with this in mind (we accept all relative paths).
The ./ prefix is standard syntax for relative URLs; don't depend on Angular's current ability to do without that prefix.
Rationale: A component relative URL requires no change when you move the component files, as long as the files stay together.
related to #623