RedundantTypeAnnotation: add 'ignore_type_interfaces' option #5839
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
The `redundant_type_annotation` and `explicit_type_interface` rules conflict.
For users that want to have an explicit type interface, but still be able to write
simple code inside the bodies of functions, I want to add an option to
`redundant_type_annotation` that has it ignore "type interfaces".
For example, this allows:
```
struct Foo {
var bar: Bar = Bar() // OK: ignore this! I want explicit types on interfaces.
func baz() {
let bar: Bar = Bar() // WARN: redundant_type_annotation kicks in here though.
}
}
```
2 tasks
Generated by 🚫 Danger |
SimplyDanny
requested changes
Nov 3, 2024
| @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ struct RedundantTypeAnnotationConfiguration: SeverityBasedRuleConfiguration { | |||
| var severityConfiguration = SeverityConfiguration<Parent>(.warning) | |||
| @ConfigurationElement(key: "ignore_attributes") | |||
| var ignoreAttributes = Set<String>(["IBInspectable"]) | |||
| @ConfigurationElement(key: "ignore_type_interfaces") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Which other elements apart from properties does this include?
If it's only about properties, we could be more specific with the name by calling it ignore_properties.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I think it is limited only to that. I was trying to echo the other rule (explicit_type_interfaces) by the name, but your suggestion is probably more accurate. I can change it!
Comment on lines
+283
to
+288
| if ignoreTypeInterfaces, | ||
| let parentNode = varDecl.parent, | ||
| parentNode.as(CodeBlockItemSyntax.self) == nil { | ||
| return true | ||
| } | ||
| return false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| if ignoreTypeInterfaces, | |
| let parentNode = varDecl.parent, | |
| parentNode.as(CodeBlockItemSyntax.self) == nil { | |
| return true | |
| } | |
| return false | |
| return ignoreTypeInterfaces && varDecl.parent?.is(MemberBlockItemSyntax.self) == true |
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.
The
redundant_type_annotationandexplicit_type_interfacerules conflict. For users that want to have an explicit type interface, but still be able to write simple code inside the bodies of functions, I want to add an option toredundant_type_annotationthat has it ignore "type interfaces".For example, this allows:
I suggest that this addresses the complaint made in Issue #3750.