APP-50 - Enforce specific linting rules for app development.#192
Open
aligent-lturner wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
APP-50 - Enforce specific linting rules for app development.#192aligent-lturner wants to merge 1 commit into
aligent-lturner wants to merge 1 commit into
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description of the proposed changes
Add linting rules for App Builder app development:
no-restricted-importson@adobe/aio-sdk, preventing bringing in the whole sdk just for a specific function@typescript-eslint/no-non-null-assertion, preventing!.usage@typescript-eslint/prefer-nullish-coalescing, preventing accidental mistreatment of valid falsy valuesno-restricted-syntax(process.env), process.env is not reliable in OpenWhisk runtime, and should not be used.Screenshots
N/A
Other solutions considered (if any)
The
prefer-nullish-coalescingrule is the most tenuous, but I think it's probably best to be explicit if we really need to check for empty strings/0/etc.Notes to reviewers