feat(prefer-svelte-reactivity): reporting returned variables #1326
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: 1f6450e The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
Try the Instant Preview in Online PlaygroundInstall the Instant Preview to Your LocalPublished Instant Preview Packages:
|
marekdedic
force-pushed
the
prefer-svelte-reactivity-returned-vars
branch
3 times, most recently
from
0441041 to
a299b31
Compare
|
Firstly, this PR is part of a wider effort to move the rule to better detect when variables are "encapsulated" inside a function/class and not report them - this PR is an off-shoot of #1287 But this should make sense even on its own anyway - but I think it does. Example
function makeSet() {
const a = new Set();
// Populate the set etc.
return a;
}
export makeSet;
<script>
import { makeSet } from "fileA";
const a = makeSet();
</script>
<!-- Print the set here -->
<button onclick={a.add(42);}>Click me!</button>In this example, this PR reports the incorrect usage of |
marekdedic
force-pushed
the
prefer-svelte-reactivity-returned-vars
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5774d2f to
4f23b63
Compare
marekdedic
force-pushed
the
prefer-svelte-reactivity-returned-vars
branch
from
4f23b63 to
22b93d5
Compare
ota-meshi
force-pushed
the
prefer-svelte-reactivity-returned-vars
branch
from
22b93d5 to
1f6450e
Compare
| } | ||
| </script> | ||
|
|
||
| {fn().has(42)} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm. This is actually fine as is, right? (It shouldn't be reported, right?)
Could you change it to track the value the function returns, check if there's a mutation, and only report that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've been thinking about this more and you are right. I think this needs a change of approach. I will probably make an alternative PR.
No description provided.