feat!: skip running warnings in --quiet mode #17274
Conversation
|
Hi everyone, it looks like we lost track of this pull request. Please review and see what the next steps are. This pull request will auto-close in 7 days without an update. |
|
Not stale. Work in progress. |
|
Hi everyone, it looks like we lost track of this pull request. Please review and see what the next steps are. This pull request will auto-close in 7 days without an update. |
|
Sorry am still working on it; have been a bit busy and given this is blocked by the next major release it’s not too high on my list of priorities as I’m assuming that’s still at least a little while away - I’ll try to finish it up sometime soonish then rebase it every so often to keep the bot happy |
|
Hi everyone, it looks like we lost track of this pull request. Please review and see what the next steps are. This pull request will auto-close in 7 days without an update. |
|
Not stale sorry, I’ve been fairly busy |
|
Hi everyone, it looks like we lost track of this pull request. Please review and see what the next steps are. This pull request will auto-close in 7 days without an update. |
ca15aa6 to
d7f3918
Compare
✅ Deploy Preview for docs-eslint canceled.
|
|
Hi everyone, it looks like we lost track of this pull request. Please review and see what the next steps are. This pull request will auto-close in 7 days without an update. |
57ee39c to
451edeb
Compare
44f46c5 to
bd74353
Compare
bd74353 to
acff363
Compare
|
I believe this should be ready for review. I looked over it and wrote some tests to validate that the |
Prerequisites checklist
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to an item)
[ ] Documentation update
[ ] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[ ] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofix to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[X] Add something to the core
[ ] Other, please explain:
https://github.com/eslint/rfcs/tree/main/designs/2023-only-run-reporting-rules
Fixes #16450
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
This PR implements the RFC around only running rules that actually report information in quiet mode. This adds a predicate function that is passed down to the runRules function that filters out all non-error rules when the
--quietflag is entered andmaxWarningsis not in use. All rules returning false from the predicate function are skipped during rule running.TODO:
I believe the
--max-warningsflag handling is already covered by the existing tests, as from a test perspective it only cares about if it still works with quiet mode (everything else is an implementation detail). I've added tests that theruleFilteroption does actually filter out rules to the linter.Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?