☁️ Nx Cloud Report

CI is running/has finished running commands for commitfc3eadf. As they complete they will appear below. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights.

📂 See all runs for this branch

Sent with 💌 fromNxCloud.

Thanks for the PR,@Josh-Cena!

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.

✅ Deploy Preview fortypescript-eslint ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	fc3eadf
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/typescript-eslint/deploys/62b7583cbb3c2b0007d668bf
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-5116--typescript-eslint.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to yourNetlify site settings.

I lazily reused a lot of styles fromhttps://docusaurus.io/showcase/. Do we want to use the same card view instead of table view?

Also currently the filters look a bit raw. There are only two states: "include" and "don't care". Ideally each checkbox should be tri-state: "include", "don't care", and "exclude". But the UI/UX is a bit hard to design.

Do we want to use the same card view instead of table view?

maybe something like this?

Let's see—much easier to experiment now.

OK the filter logic is hard to make... We have three possible states:

• include: if a rule has attribute X, immediately include it in the list
• exclude: if a rule has attribute X, immediately exclude it from the list
• neutral: hold a neutral option and yield to other filters to decide whether the current rule should be included

But if all filters are "neutral" about a rule (either because they have "neutral" state or because the rule has no attributes), should we include it? This means we either have to have an option "default to include/exclude", or we expand the states to much more states, because we have two cases: a rule with/without attribute X, each with three outcomes: immediately include, immediately exclude, and remain neutral. And after that comes the question of priority when one filter wants to include and the other wants to exclude.

Filters are hard to build... The only alternative is to allow writing custom queries 😄

We may define priority based on the order of clicking, but that feels a bit unwieldy as well. Anyways, the UI is here; what UX we want is up for discussion.

what do you guys think about changing those tables to have css

    display: table;    width: 100%;

as right now while filtering size of it can shift alot

display: table;width:100%;

Do I look like I know any CSS... 😄

I'll admit I tried this, and setwidth: 100% fortable,thead, and everything else—but the table still shifts when there are no subitems.

4.5em looks a bit too wide for me... Not sure if that's necessary for other devices though.

that's depends if we want to keep them vertically or horizontally

if horizontally I think its actually betterwhite-space: nowrap; instead of defining width

Pushed a layout with vertically arranged icons. I like it better

related issue#4366

wdyt about changing filters a little

this is just and idea, i'm not sure if good one 🐱

"fixable" / "has suggestions" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact I'm not even sure if it's a good idea to not show "recommended" rules as not included in "strict" (sorry for the triple negation). I'm also thinking about a toggle between "AND" and "OR" of these filters, as seen on our showcase:https://docusaurus.io/showcase

good idea to not show "recommended" rules as not included in "strict"

A rule can only be in one of those two rulesets. Rules that are in strict are not in recommended, and vice versa.

This is confusing and keeps coming up (why would you enable strict without recommended?) so maybe it'll change. But at least in version 5.X+ the two have no overlap.

A rule can only be in one of those two rulesets. Rules that are in strict are not in recommended, and vice versa.

Ugh, I have made that realization at least twice during my course of working on this, but I keep forgetting... Thanks for reminding again...

Re ☝️ ,#5204

@Josh-Cena just checking, is this ready for re-review? No worries if you haven't had time 🙂 just don't want to keep you waiting!

This is going to be very good for the docs push, so I'm happy to take it over the finishing line if you're swamped with other things.

I think the only pending issue is the accessibility of the badges, right? (Unless you guys want some other UX for the filters?)

I'm indeed a bit occupied with other stuff these weeks (relocating to the US this summer so getting visas and all paperwork sorted out.) Would appreciate it if you can help out. Thanks a lot!

Edit: and, welcome to the states! 🙌