You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am watching this discussion, #1243 .
This discussion is not suitable for discuss linter tools.
I have an interest to switch closure-linter to others.
We could not write template string literal in our codes, because closure linter does not recognize new syntax like "". I guess closure linter dose not recognize arrow function =>and generator functionfunction*`.
I think this closure-linter is to be obstacle to change our code to ES6.
+1. However, we have to decide whether we should be able to run the linter without building io.js; the closure linter was written in Python, while both jshint and eslint are in JavaScript.
Yep, the previous status was that we'd be okay switching to eslint / javascript-based tools, since they run after the tests (and thus, we can assume we have at least one working iojs around).
I lean towards eslint (or eslint+jscs), since it's got a pluggable rule system. I have a work in progress branch that switches things over, if anyone would like to take it over. The difficulty was striking a balance between leaning useful rules on and avoiding code churn.
The new-cap rule assumes that the any capitalized variable is a constructor. Maybe the 'pluggable' system would allow us to add special rules like for these DTRACE constants?
Activity
yosuke-furukawa commentedon Mar 25, 2015
@chrisdickinson I guess you also have an interest to switch other linter. #1243 (comment)
This work is great!
brendanashworth commentedon Mar 25, 2015
+1. However, we have to decide whether we should be able to run the linter without building io.js; the closure linter was written in Python, while both jshint and eslint are in JavaScript.
jbergstroem commentedon Mar 25, 2015
I'd be ok with only being able to execute things like tests, benchmarks and qa tools after a build.
chrisdickinson commentedon Mar 25, 2015
Yep, the previous status was that we'd be okay switching to eslint / javascript-based tools, since they run after the tests (and thus, we can assume we have at least one working
iojsaround).I lean towards eslint (or eslint+jscs), since it's got a pluggable rule system. I have a work in progress branch that switches things over, if anyone would like to take it over. The difficulty was striking a balance between leaning useful rules on and avoiding code churn.
silverwind commentedon Mar 25, 2015
eslint looks pretty flexible. One thing I'd like to avoid is wrapping code in exclusion rules like this:
The new-cap rule assumes that the any capitalized variable is a constructor. Maybe the 'pluggable' system would allow us to add special rules like for these DTRACE constants?
tools: replace closure-linter with eslint
lib: fix eslint styles
yosuke-furukawa commentedon May 9, 2015
Switched closure-linter to eslint! Thanks! f9dd34d 19ffb5c
tools: replace closure-linter with eslint
lib: fix eslint styles