feat: add no-export-load-in-svelte-module-in-kit-pages #281
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: 7d870c0 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 |
|
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox. To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA. |
package.json
Outdated
| @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ | |||
| "access": "public" | |||
| }, | |||
| "typeCoverage": { | |||
| "atLeast": 98.71, | |||
| "atLeast": 98.7, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Due to package.json check, I couldn't find a way to cover the conditions.
So helplessly, I changed here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it's a problem because I think it's a sufficient coverage rate.
baseballyama
force-pushed
the
feature/no-export-load-in-svelte-module-in-kit-pages
branch
from
ddc46a6 to
08fc369
Compare
| const hasSvelteKit = (() => { | ||
| try { | ||
| const packageJson = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync("./package.json", "utf8")) | ||
| // Hack: CI removes `@sveltejs/kit` and it returns false and test failed. | ||
| // So always it returns true if it runs on the package. | ||
| if (packageJson.name === "eslint-plugin-svelte") return true | ||
| return Boolean( | ||
| packageJson.dependencies["@sveltejs/kit"] ?? | ||
| packageJson.devDependencies["@sveltejs/kit"], | ||
| ) | ||
| } catch (_e) { | ||
| return false | ||
| } | ||
| })() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If a user doesn't use SvelteKit, I don't want to show an error, so I added to check package.json.
Is it the correct way?
And in the CI removes SvelteKit, so for the test, I added chack logic with packageJson.name
I think this is a bad idea but I don't have a better idea.
If correct, I will move it to utils for other SvelteKit-related rules.
| module.exports = { | ||
| // ... | ||
| settings: { | ||
| kit: { | ||
| files: { | ||
| routes: "src/routes", | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| // ... | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I choose that I added shared configuration for kit routes path.
I think over 95% of users use default settings src/routes.
So only a few users need to config it.
And for 5% users, we discussed that we will use espree but it may fail to get the path if they rely to env of some external information. So for now I didn't implement this logic.
#241 (comment)
resolve: #241