Prefer @typescript-eslint/no-unused-expression #450
Merged
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
- Update converter for no-unused-expression to use the @typescript-eslint variation
JoshuaKGoldberg
approved these changes
May 5, 2020
rwaskiewicz
deleted the
rwaskewicz/prefer-typescript-eslint-verison-no-unused-expression
branch
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
PR Checklist
status: accepting prsOverview
This PR largely builds off of the work in #205. It updates the converter to use @typescript-eslint/no-unused-expressions over ESLint's no-unused-expressions rule (the
@typescript-eslintversion seems to have come along after #205 was landed).Looking at the rule source, the only thing that the new rule seems to add is support for optional call expressions (thanks TS 3.7 ❤️) and directives in modules . I didn't see any additional flags added to the new rule that would need to be added to the existing tests (I think 😉)