-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.8k
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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[no-constructed-context-values] Update isJsxContext check to allow for JSXIdentifier ending with Provider #3283
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
…w for JSXIdentifier ending with Provider
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3283 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 97.72% 97.73% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 123 123
Lines 8745 8746 +1
Branches 3170 3173 +3
==========================================
+ Hits 8546 8548 +2
+ Misses 199 198 -1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
const isJsxContext = (openingElementName.type === 'JSXMemberExpression' | ||
&& openingElementName.property.name === 'Provider') | ||
|| (openingElementName.type === 'JSXIdentifier' | ||
&& openingElementName.name.endsWith('Provider')); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This isn't a convention we can reasonably hardcode into this plugin, I'm afraid.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
another option here could be to add a config option for specifying a pattern to test an identifier against.
maybe something like:
jsxIdentifierPattern: RegExp
what do you think about something like ^? happy to update the PR if you're okay with this approach
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Allowing regexes in eslint config is a very bad idea, and is a magnet for ReDOS CVEs.
I don't think it's possible to have your convention work with static analysis, I'm afraid. You could perhaps use a pragma comment like we have to identify React components that extend "not React.Component", but you'd still have to put it in every consuming file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thanks for the reply.
re: the regexp, my thought here was that it would be isolated to just the jsx identifier so the risk would be low. also, afaik there are other rules (in this project) that do support regex configs so i thought it would be an acceptable approach (ex: https://github.com/jsx-eslint/eslint-plugin-react/blob/master/lib/rules/boolean-prop-naming.js#L45)
it seems that this should be something that we can detect statically since we know the identifier, it's just a matter of validating that the identifier is a valid context provider. another idea here would be use a function as a config option (i.e. isJsxIdentifierContextProvider
) but that feels pretty overkill imo
not trying to be pushy here - just trying to brainstorm ideas to support our use case. would love to avoid forking this rule since 99% of the logic would be the same.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm definitely open to ideas - it's just got to be something maintainable.
59af733
to
865ed16
Compare
069314a
to
181c68f
Compare
380e32c
to
51d342b
Compare
jsx/no-constructed-context-values
currently only works for context providers that are used as<Context.Provider value={..}>
We have a lot of use cases where, instead of exporting the context directly, we explicitly export the provider as a named export. The naming convention for this is typically
${NameOfContext}Provider
The proposed change here is to update the
isJsxContext
check to take the above scenario into account and run the lint rule for these elements as well.