Add no-object-as-default-parameter rule

[medusalix]

Simply reports any default-assignments of objects to function parameters as described in this comment.

Fixes #208

---

IssueHunt Summary

Referenced issues

This pull request has been submitted to:

• #208: Rule proposal: No default parameter options

---

IssueHunt has been backed by the following sponsors. Become a sponsor

[fisker]

How about name no-object-as-default

[fisker]

On second though, will people think this rule forbid this following syntax?

export {
    object as default,
// ^
    foo as bar
};

[medusalix]

I don't think users will mix that up. The description is pretty clear about the rule's purpose.

[sindresorhus]

I would name the rule no-object-as-default-parameter to make it clearer.

[fisker]

Please add tests about class/object methods.

[medusalix]

Please add tests about class/object methods.

Could you please elaborate? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

[fisker]

Please test

class A {
  method(foo = {bar:1}) {}
}

const A = class {
  method(foo = {bar:1}) {}
}

object = {
  method(foo = {bar:1}) {}
}

Maybe also constructor and getter setter

And

const foo = ([bar = {a = false, b = 123}]) => {};

const foo = ({bar: baz = {a = false, b = 123}}) => {};

const foo = ({foo = {a = false, b = 123}}) => {};

I'm on cellphone, didn't format well.

[medusalix]

const foo = ({bar: baz = {a = false, b = 123}}) => {};
const foo = ({foo = {a = false, b = 123}}) => {};

Is this syntactically correct? It gives me Shorthand property assignments are valid only in destructuring patterns.

Maybe also constructor and getter setter

I've added tests for the constructor and setter, it doesn't seem like getters allow parameters.

[fisker]

const adc = () => (foo = {bar: 1}); This one looks similar to default parameter, but it's not , let's add it to test too.

[fisker]

const foo = ({bar: baz = {a = false, b = 123}}) => {};
const foo = ({foo = {a = false, b = 123}}) => {};

Is this syntactically correct? It gives me Shorthand property assignments are valid only in destructuring patterns.

Okay , if it's not valid, I mean to test deep destructuring.

Maybe also constructor and getter setter

I've added tests for the constructor and setter, it doesn't seem like getters allow parameters.

Okay.

[fisker]

Looks good , I'll check again when I back to my laptop.

[medusalix]

Thank you. I really appreciate your constructive feedback, it's always very helpful 👍.

[fisker]

LGTM, one note.

[sindresorhus]

Great! Looks good to me too 👍