There are some rules missing in this file. I assume it's simply an oversight.

there shouldn't be any missing files - it should be tested against and enforced.

or maybe this readme file isn't tested like the main readme is...?

I don't think it's tested as comprehensively as the main readme, no.

We should definitely fix this! Considering this file powers our website - it should be generated and tested just like the one in the main readme!

Or perhaps we should just generate the website table at website build time instead of making it rely on a markdown file on disk?

Certainly. I've addeddocs/rules/README.md to the tests.

we should just generate the website table at website build time

We can do that later; it's a bit harder.

Oh, interesting! I was actually thinking of going the other way and preferring third-person singular."Requires XYZ" and such.

Reasoning: imperative mood reads (to me, at least) as a command: that you should do the thing in the sentence. That's only true for some rules, and then within each rule not true for all projects.

OTOH third-person singular indicates it's describing the rule. That's more directly the goal of these description strings & docs.

For reference,https://eslint.org/docs/rules uses imperative but the individual pages such ashttps://eslint.org/docs/rules/array-callback-return use third-person singular.

Ah, maybe I should line up the format with ESLint's, then? Using third-person singular for individual pages.

As for the "command-sounding" tone, though, the imperative mood reads like a description as well. "Require"/"Disallow" etc. sound obvious enough that the omitted subject is "the rule", instead of "you must do X".

Yeah I'm thinking it would make sense for ESLint to use third-person singulareverywhere 🤷

FWIW, I like saving one character😥

Continuing the thread from#4976 (comment): I'd really rather we didn't do the extra work to massage between one and two. In addition to requiring (admittedly clever) tricks like this one, I get a bit of cognitively dissonance havingslightly different descriptions for the same rule in multiple places.

It's fine having this here for now, so we can just move this discussion to#5096 as a followup if you feel strongly.

I agree. I also mentioned in#5085 (comment) I'd like this to be eventually automated as well. However, I do prefer the table to be imperative because it looks more... succinct & professional? My own feeling when reading the ESLint docs.