fix(lines-before-block): move start-of-block checking behind off-by-default checkBlockStarts option #1341
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
…efault checkBlockStarts option
JoshuaKGoldberg
force-pushed
the
lines-before-block-check-block-starts
branch
from
0747a53 to
33401b5
Compare
|
🎉 This issue has been resolved in version 50.6.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
|
Thanks for the PR! I switched it to a |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #1296.
Intentionally phrased as a
fixrather than afeatbecause IMO reporting on JSDoc blocks at the beginning of a block by default is a bug. But this does add a feature by way of the new option... 🤷I don't love the name
checkBlockStarts. But I couldn't think of anything better.Doesn't handle array starts (
[\n/** ... */]) because that wasn't requested in any issue. I suppose that could be another option? I propose leaving that as a followup.