fix(language_server): append rule to existing disable comment instead of creating duplicate #16081

camc314 · 2025-11-24T23:13:24Z

When using the 'Disable rule for this line' quick fix, if there's already a disable-next-line comment on the line above, append the new rule to the existing comment using comma separation instead of creating a new duplicate comment.

Fixes #16060

… of creating duplicate When using the 'Disable rule for this line' quick fix, if there's already a disable-next-line comment on the line above, append the new rule to the existing comment using comma separation instead of creating a new duplicate comment. Fixes #16060

camc314 · 2025-11-24T23:13:40Z

How to use the Graphite Merge Queue

Add either label to this PR to merge it via the merge queue:

0-merge - adds this PR to the back of the merge queue
hotfix - for urgent hot fixes, skip the queue and merge this PR next

You must have a Graphite account in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link.

_{An organization admin has enabled the Graphite Merge Queue in this repository.} _{Please do not merge from GitHub as this will restart CI on PRs being processed by the merge queue.}

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

codspeed-hq · 2025-11-24T23:18:27Z

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #16081 will not alter performance

_{Comparing c/11-24-fix_language_server_append_rule_to_existing_disable_comment_instead_of_creating_duplicate (b05be94) with main (e1c21ca)¹}

Summary

✅ 4 untouched
⏩ 41 skipped²

No successful run was found on main (bab4bc8) during the generation of this report, so e1c21ca was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩
41 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR enhances the language server's "Disable rule for this line" quick fix to append rules to existing disable-next-line comments instead of creating duplicate comments. The implementation adds a new is_next_line field to the DisableRuleComment struct to distinguish between different directive types, and introduces logic to find and modify existing comments.

Key Changes:

Added is_next_line boolean field to DisableRuleComment to track directive types
Implemented find_disable_next_line_comment_for_position method to locate existing disable-next-line comments
Created append_rule_to_existing_comment function to modify existing comments instead of creating duplicates

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

File	Description
`crates/oxc_linter/src/disable_directives.rs`	Added `is_next_line` field to `DisableRuleComment` struct and new method to find disable-next-line comments at a given position
`crates/oxc_language_server/src/linter/error_with_position.rs`	Implemented logic to append rules to existing disable-next-line comments and refactored disable comment creation into separate functions
`crates/oxc_language_server/src/linter/isolated_lint_handler.rs`	Updated to pass directives information to diagnostic conversion for quick fix generation
`crates/oxc_language_server/src/linter/snapshots/[email protected]`	Updated snapshot to reflect new behavior of appending to existing comments instead of creating duplicates

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

You can also share your feedback on Copilot code review for a chance to win a $100 gift card. Take the survey.

Copilot · 2025-11-24T23:21:26Z

crates/oxc_linter/src/disable_directives.rs

                        self.disable_rule_comments.push(DisableRuleComment {
                            span: comment_span,
                            r#type: RuleCommentType::All,
+                            is_next_line: true,


The is_next_line field should be false for disable-line directives. While DisabledRule.is_next_line uses true for both -next-line and -line directives (to distinguish line-specific from file-wide directives), DisableRuleComment.is_next_line should distinguish -next-line (true) from -line (false) directives.

This is because find_disable_next_line_comment_for_position should only match -next-line comments when looking for an existing comment to append to, not -line comments.

Copilot · 2025-11-24T23:21:26Z

crates/oxc_linter/src/disable_directives.rs

                        self.disable_rule_comments.push(DisableRuleComment {
                            span: comment_span,
                            r#type: RuleCommentType::Single(rules),
+                            is_next_line: true,


The is_next_line field should be false for disable-line directives. While DisabledRule.is_next_line uses true for both -next-line and -line directives (to distinguish line-specific from file-wide directives), DisableRuleComment.is_next_line should distinguish -next-line (true) from -line (false) directives.

This is because find_disable_next_line_comment_for_position should only match -next-line comments when looking for an existing comment to append to, not -line comments.

Copilot · 2025-11-24T23:21:27Z

crates/oxc_linter/src/disable_directives.rs

    pub span: Span,
    /// Rules disabled by the comment
    pub r#type: RuleCommentType,
+    /// Whether this is a `disable-next-line` or `disable-line` directive


The documentation comment is ambiguous. It should clarify that true means this is a disable-next-line directive, and false means it's either a disable-line or regular disable directive.

Suggested wording: "Whether this is a disable-next-line directive (as opposed to disable-line or disable)"

Suggested change

/// Whether this is a `disable-next-line` or `disable-line` directive

/// Whether this is a `disable-next-line` directive (as opposed to `disable-line` or `disable`)

Copilot · 2025-11-24T23:21:27Z

crates/oxc_linter/src/disable_directives.rs

                    return None;
                }

+                let is_next_line = group_vec.first().is_some_and(|i| i.val.is_next_line());


The is_next_line value is incorrectly computed from interval.val.is_next_line(), which returns true for both -next-line and -line directives.

For DisableRuleComment, is_next_line should be true only for -next-line directives, and false for -line and regular disable directives.

To fix this, you need to determine the actual directive type from the interval. One approach is to check if the interval starts at comment_span.end (which indicates -next-line) or at an earlier position (which indicates -line or disable).

Suggested change

let is_next_line = group_vec.first().is_some_and(|i| i.val.is_next_line());

let is_next_line = group_vec.first().is_some_and(|i| i.start == comment_span.end);

Sysix · 2025-11-25T00:12:11Z

crates/oxc_language_server/src/linter/error_with_position.rs

+    };
+
+    // Check if the rule is already in the comment
+    if existing_rules.contains(&rule_name) {


This should never happen. The fix/diagnostic is only shown when the rule is not in the comment.
Adding a (debug_)assert! would be helpful :)

Sysix · 2025-11-25T00:15:59Z

crates/oxc_language_server/src/linter/error_with_position.rs

            section_offset,
            rope,
            source_text,
+            directives,


This fixes only for the "fix on this line" and not "on the whole file" (section for partial loaders).
Probably need to update the PR title

Sysix · 2025-11-25T00:17:29Z

crates/oxc_language_server/src/linter/error_with_position.rs

    }

    #[test]
    fn disable_for_this_line_single_line() {


Can we add some tests please? Specially with partial source text (section offset > 0).
I am afraid that this will be skipped by the internal linter.

github-actions bot added A-linter Area - Linter A-editor Area - Editor and Language Server labels Nov 24, 2025

github-actions bot added the C-bug Category - Bug label Nov 24, 2025

camc314 marked this pull request as ready for review November 24, 2025 23:14

camc314 requested a review from Sysix as a code owner November 24, 2025 23:14

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings November 24, 2025 23:14

camc314 assigned Sysix Nov 24, 2025

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of camc314 November 24, 2025 23:14 View session

Copilot finished reviewing on behalf of camc314 November 24, 2025 23:20

Copilot AI reviewed Nov 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

Sysix reviewed Nov 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fix(language_server): append rule to existing disable comment instead of creating duplicate #16081

fix(language_server): append rule to existing disable comment instead of creating duplicate #16081

camc314 commented Nov 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

camc314 commented Nov 24, 2025

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq bot commented Nov 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Sysix Nov 25, 2025

Uh oh!

Sysix Nov 25, 2025

Uh oh!

Sysix Nov 25, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

	/// Whether this is a `disable-next-line` or `disable-line` directive
	/// Whether this is a `disable-next-line` directive (as opposed to `disable-line` or `disable`)

	let is_next_line = group_vec.first().is_some_and(\|i\| i.val.is_next_line());
	let is_next_line = group_vec.first().is_some_and(\|i\| i.start == comment_span.end);

Uh oh!

fix(language_server): append rule to existing disable comment instead of creating duplicate #16081

Are you sure you want to change the base?

fix(language_server): append rule to existing disable comment instead of creating duplicate #16081

Conversation

camc314 commented Nov 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

camc314 commented Nov 24, 2025

How to use the Graphite Merge Queue

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq bot commented Nov 24, 2025

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #16081 will not alter performance

Summary

Footnotes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Sysix Nov 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Sysix Nov 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Sysix Nov 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

camc314 commented Nov 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading