Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

fix(eslint-plugin): [prefer-return-this-type] checkaccessor properties with a function initializer#10794

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes fromall commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
33 changes: 18 additions & 15 deletionspackages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/prefer-return-this-type.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -148,24 +148,27 @@ export default createRule({
}
}

function checkProperty(
node: TSESTree.AccessorProperty | TSESTree.PropertyDefinition,
): void {
if (
!(
node.value?.type === AST_NODE_TYPES.FunctionExpression ||
node.value?.type === AST_NODE_TYPES.ArrowFunctionExpression
)
) {
return;
}

checkFunction(node.value, node.parent.parent);
}

return {
'ClassBody > AccessorProperty': checkProperty,
'ClassBody > MethodDefinition'(node: TSESTree.MethodDefinition): void {
checkFunction(node.value, node.parent.parent as ClassLikeDeclaration);
},
'ClassBody > PropertyDefinition'(
node: TSESTree.PropertyDefinition,
): void {
if (
!(
node.value?.type === AST_NODE_TYPES.FunctionExpression ||
node.value?.type === AST_NODE_TYPES.ArrowFunctionExpression
)
) {
return;
}

checkFunction(node.value, node.parent.parent as ClassLikeDeclaration);
checkFunction(node.value, node.parent.parent);
Comment on lines -167 to +169
Copy link
MemberAuthor

@ronamironamiFeb 6, 2025
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

The type assertion seems unnecessary since#9560.

This is an unrelated change, but I decided to include it as it's a tiny change and on the same part of the code that the PR changes anyway.

JoshuaKGoldberg reacted with thumbs up emoji
Copy link
MemberAuthor

@ronamironamiFeb 6, 2025
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

I wonder if this can be caught byno-unnecessary-type-assertion 🤔

SinceClassLikeDeclaration is a different type alias (and thus a different type),the comparison seems to fail (even thoughClassLikeDeclaration is assigned the same type as the un-asserted type). Inlining the value of the type alias seem to causeno-unnecessary-type-assertion to report this.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Yeah that would be nice. My hunch is it's some nuance about generic functions having type parameters inferred from types of arguments.

ronami reacted with thumbs up emoji
},
'ClassBody > PropertyDefinition': checkProperty,
};
},
});
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -79,6 +79,25 @@ class Derived extends Base {
f(): Base {
return this;
}
}
`,
`
class Foo {
accessor f = () => {
return this;
};
}
`,
`
class Foo {
accessor f = (): this => {
return this;
};
}
`,
`
class Foo {
f?: string;
}
`,
Comment on lines +98 to 102
Copy link
MemberAuthor

@ronamironamiFeb 6, 2025
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

This is a test addition that isn't related to theaccessor changes, but was previously uncovered. This fails codecov (as the uncovered code has been moved to a function), and because it's such a tiny addition, I decided to include it in this PR.

JoshuaKGoldberg reacted with thumbs up emoji
],
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -108,6 +127,29 @@ class Foo {
},
{
code: `
class Foo {
f = function (): Foo {
return this;
};
}
`,
errors: [
{
column: 20,
line: 3,
messageId: 'useThisType',
},
],
output: `
class Foo {
f = function (): this {
return this;
};
}
`,
},
{
code: `
class Foo {
f(): Foo {
const self = this;
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -200,6 +242,48 @@ class Foo {
},
{
code: `
class Foo {
accessor f = (): Foo => {
return this;
};
}
`,
errors: [
{
column: 20,
line: 3,
messageId: 'useThisType',
},
],
output: `
class Foo {
accessor f = (): this => {
return this;
};
}
`,
},
{
code: `
class Foo {
accessor f = (): Foo => this;
}
`,
errors: [
{
column: 20,
line: 3,
messageId: 'useThisType',
},
],
output: `
class Foo {
accessor f = (): this => this;
}
`,
},
{
code: `
class Foo {
f1(): Foo | undefined {
return this;
Expand Down
Loading

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp