Ignore File Rules #21
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thanks for the PR! I'll check it out as soon as I can. |
|
Hi @dixonwille , Just wanted to check in to see if you'd gotten a chance to take a look at this. Thanks again! -Tim |
|
Thank you! Do you think we could publish a new version of the linter (I assume Thanks again. |
|
@timkral done. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi @dixonwille ,
I'm very interested in using your linter (thank you for writing it), however, I have a use case in which I want to apply package import checks to only a portion of my code base. So I've introduced a new concept which allows a user to write rules to ignore files considered by the linter.
The syntax and semantics of the rules is very nearly the same as those for the package import checks (i.e. string prefixes and string glob patterns). However, there is a small caveat in which the rules have special syntax which allows for negation. I provided examples and a description of this in the README.
You'll also find that I added a number of tests to check the new functionality and avoid regressions. I'm pretty confident that these changes are backwards compatible and include no regression to existing functionality.
Let me know what you think and if there are any other changes that are needed.
Thanks.
-Tim