Rule proposal: prefer-destructured-variables

[fisker]

I understand we already have consistent-destructuring, and it already covers cases I'm going to post, but that rule is buggy, and I don't like destructuring all used properties in one, I prefer destructuring when needed, for example:

const {a} = foo;

if (a) {
  // ... do something not related to `foo.b`
}

const {b} = foo;

// ... do something with `b`

Fail

const {a} = foo;
console.log(foo.a); 

Pass

const {a} = foo;
console.log(a, foo.b); 

It's like splitting consistent-destructuring into two rules, this one and another like prefer-one-destructuring.

---

• consistent-destructuring propsal
• Other cases do want be destructured in another issue

[brettz9]

This looks like a good solution for your use case and a good compromise solution for those of us who do want to require destructuring where possible and practical, but not tyrannically so (as long as it is implemented to meet my case as it sounds it would be and GuoSirius' (since that is technically a variable but just not yet available)). In any case, some false negatives are not concealing technically bad code.

[sindresorhus]

I agree, I thought consistent-restructuring would be a good idea, but in practice, it's just been annoying. I think we should also turn consistent-destructuring off by default.

[sindresorhus]

This is now accepted.

[gurgunday]

const {a} = foo;
console.log(foo.a);
// PASS

Writing the obvious, but the rule should check if foo.a was assigned to a new value and not warn if that's the case