Skip to content
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

Fix linting problems #18

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Fix linting problems #18

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

alrra
Copy link
Contributor

@alrra alrra commented Mar 9, 2017

Currently some of the core ESLint rules have issues with TypeScript-specific concepts.

See also: eslint/typescript-eslint-parser#77

Currently some of the core ESLint rules have issues with
TypeScript-specific concepts.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ref: eslint/typescript-eslint-parser#77
@alrra alrra requested a review from molant March 9, 2017 08:44
@@ -3,9 +3,10 @@
* @author Anton Molleda (@molant) based on Nicholas C. Zakas ESLint (https://github.com/eslint/eslint/blob/master/lib/rule-context.js)
*/

import { validate as ruleValidator } from './config/config-rules';
/* eslint-disable no-unused-vars */
Copy link
Contributor Author

@alrra alrra Mar 9, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@molant We could just drop no-unused-vars and use the noUnusedLocals and noUnusedParameters TypeScript compiler options (as one suggested on the ESLint related issue, but that has its limitations).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've refactored a bit the code and now we don't need to import the types. There are still a couple no-unused-vars out there but not as many as it used to be. I think we should be ok for now but if we see things start getting out of control again we can review this again.

@molant
Copy link
Member

molant commented Mar 12, 2017

Closing this in favor of #36. From what I've seen there shouldn't be too many changes and the merge was mostly clean. Hopefully you don't have a lot of problems with your current work.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants