Rule Change: Expose identifiers in the message for the no-*-definitions rule

[juhwano]

What rule do you want to change?

no-duplicate-definitions, no-empty-definitions

What change do you want to make?

Implement suggestions

How do you think the change should be implemented?

A new default behavior

Example code

1. no-duplicate-definitions
[link-1]: https://example.com
[link-2]: https://example.com/b
[link-1]: https://example.com/a

2. no-empty-definitions
[link-1]: https://example.com
[link-2]: https://example.com/b
[link-3]:

What does the rule currently do for this code?

The rules currently report generic error messages that don't include the specific identifier causing the issue. This makes it difficult for developers to quickly pinpoint and fix the problem.

1. no-duplicate-definitions: "Unexpected duplicate definition found."
2. no-empty-definitions: "Unexpected empty definition found.

What will the rule do after it's changed?

The rules will be updated to include the identifier in the reported message, providing more specific and actionable feedback. This will align their behavior with the no-unused-definitions rule.

1. no-duplicate-definitions: "Unexpected duplicate definition {{ identifier }} found."
2. no-empty-definitions: "Unexpected empty definition {{ identifier }} found."

Participation

• I am willing to submit a pull request to implement this change.

Additional comments

No response

[lumirlumir]

Hi @juhwano, thanks for opening this issue :)

I think this is a good proposal, especially since we're now exposing identifier data in no-unused-definitions.

markdown/src/rules/no-unused-definitions.js

Lines 33 to 38 in 56e4b78

	messages: {
	unusedDefinition:
	"Unexpected unused definition `{{ identifier }}` found.",
	unusedFootnoteDefinition:
	"Unexpected unused footnote definition `{{ identifier }}` found.",
	},

If we include the identifier data in the messages, it would improve both verbosity and consistency across the rules, so I’m 👍 on this suggestion.

However, before moving forward, I’d like to get some more input from the team. @eslint/eslint-team

[fasttime]

The rules will be updated to include the identifier in the reported message, providing more specific and actionable feedback. This will align their behavior with the no-unused-definitions rule.

Makes sense to me 👍

[lumirlumir]

Given the comments and the scope of this change, which only affects user-facing messages, I am marking this issue as accepted.

[Nohgh]

Hi, @juhwano 😊
Thanks for opening this great issue. I’m interested in contributing to this change.
If possible, I’d like to work on the no-empty-definitions rule to include the identifier in the error message.
Could I proceed with this change?

[juhwano]

@Nohgh Yes, please go ahead