Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork2.8k
feat(eslint-plugin): [no-unsafe-declaration-merging] switch to use scope analysis instead of type information#5865
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
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Changes fromall commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Jump to
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -80,23 +80,19 @@ class Foo {} | ||
}, | ||
{ | ||
code: ` | ||
Comment on lines -83 to -88 There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more. note - we can no longer detect cases like this (as I mentioned here#5854 (comment)). I think this is an okay trade-off as it should be really rare that someone is declaration merging via a declaration merged namespace. Contributor There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more. it seems good trade off. i tried to handle these kinds of cases but i couldn't finish until now 😅 | ||
class Foo {} | ||
interface Foo {} | ||
`, | ||
errors: [ | ||
{ | ||
messageId: 'unsafeMerging', | ||
line:2, | ||
column:7, | ||
}, | ||
{ | ||
messageId: 'unsafeMerging', | ||
line:3, | ||
column:11, | ||
}, | ||
], | ||
}, | ||