fix: no-duplicate-selectors false positives for SCSS/Less nested interpolations
#6118
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
JounQin
changed the title
isStandardSyntaxSelector after nested selector resolved
Contributor
Author
|
@ybiquitous Ready for review now. |
JounQin
commented
May 25, 2022
ybiquitous
reviewed
May 26, 2022
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@JounQin Thank you! This fix looks good to me 👍🏼
Also, what about refactoring normalize() like this?
function normalize(selector) {
if (!isStandardSyntaxSelector(selector) return selector;
return selectorParser().processSync(selector, { lossless: false });
}
Contributor
Author
|
@ybiquitous Done. |
ybiquitous
changed the title
no-duplicate-selectors false positives for SCSS/Less nested interpolations
Member
|
Changelog entry added:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Closes #6110#issuecomment-1137211409
No, it's self-explanatory.