Thanks for the PR,@bradzacher!

typescript-eslint is a 100% community driven project, and we are incredibly grateful that you are contributing to that community.

The core maintainers work on this in their personal time, so please understand that it may not be possible for them to review your work immediately.

Thanks again!

🙏Please, if you or your company is finding typescript-eslint valuable, help us sustain the project by sponsoring it transparently onhttps://opencollective.com/typescript-eslint. As a thank you, your profile/company logo will be added to our main README which receives thousands of unique visitorsper day.

Codecov Report

Merging#2768 (40e40c4) intomaster (c2dde58) willdecrease coverage by0.03%.
The diff coverage is91.88%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@##           master    #2768      +/-   ##==========================================- Coverage   92.80%   92.76%   -0.04%==========================================  Files         300      301       +1       Lines        9857    10150     +293       Branches     2769     2870     +101     ==========================================+ Hits         9148     9416     +268- Misses        332      345      +13- Partials      377      389      +12

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown.Click here to find out more.

Hey 👋🏼

Sorry if this is not a correct channel to ask this, I can raise a separate issue as well, just let me know :)

Can you please help out to understand better the relation between this rule, newnaming-convnention options and theno-unused-vars-experimental?

https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/blob/master/packages/eslint-plugin/docs/rules/no-unused-vars.md
https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/blob/master/packages/eslint-plugin/docs/rules/no-unused-vars-experimental.md

Up to4.7.0 we had to useno-unused-vars-experimental because of the case ofconst foo = (_myUnusedVar, myUsedVar) => {}, but I see that experimental rule gets no development and wondering if a newunused parameter introduced in#2810 innaming-convention fixes the case.

We currently have this, but as I understand we can change it to some combo of post4.9.0 non-experimental rules, right?

{// While main rules works, it reports errors in places where TS would not complain, like underscored variables e.g. _actions// https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/blob/master/packages/eslint-plugin/docs/rules/no-unused-vars.md//// Experimental rule seems to be aligned better with TS itself// https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/blob/master/packages/eslint-plugin/docs/rules/no-unused-vars-experimental.md'no-unused-vars':[OFF],'@typescript-eslint/no-unused-vars-experimental':[ERROR],}

Seems like documentation forno-unused-vars could maybe be a bit more clear on if and how it is expected to be combined withnaming-convention, I can help out with PR as well

My understanding is this:
The no-unused-vars-experimental version was kind of a technology experiment which rebuilt the rule on a different technical base.
This no-unused-vars is another way to do it.
As the policy is to never delete a rule we now have both usable.

This is explained in#1856