Rule Proposal: vue/no-implicit-props-access

[dumptyd]

Please describe what the rule should do:

Props can be referenced in the template using propName or props.propName. Former is convenient; latter is more explicit, provides a clear delineation between local state and props and is consistent with how props are accessed in script. Former could also feel counter-intuitive if you're using Typescript (but that's subjective).

The rule, when enabled, should flag any occurrence of implicit prop access in the template.

What category should the rule belong to?

• Enforces code style (layout)
• Warns about a potential error (problem)
• Suggests an alternate way of doing something (suggestion)
• Other (please specify:)

Provide 2-3 code examples that this rule should warn about:

  <template>
    <div>
      <!-- bad -->
      <div v-if="myProp">
        myProp: true
      </div>

      <!-- bad -->
      <div>
        myProp: {{ myProp }}
      </div>

      <!-- good -->
      <div v-if="props.myProp">
        myProp: true
      </div>

      <!-- good -->
      <div>
        myProp: {{ props.myProp }}
      </div>
    </div>
  </template>
  <script lang="ts">
    export interface Props {
      myProp: boolean;
    }
    const props = defineProps<Props>();
  </script>

Additional context

I tried to look for existing rules and proposals but couldn't find anything on this subject. If this is already possible, please let me know. Thank you.

[FloEdelmann]

Seems like a good rule to me. Note that it sounds similar to #938, maybe both rules can be combined into one?

[dumptyd]

It's been a while since I've used the Options API, but I believe it would require some special considerations in general.

IIRC, the ways to access the props in Options API are propName, $props.propName and props.propName (for functional components).

For functional components it's pretty straightforward, the logic can be incorporated in this rule based on what was proposed in #938.

For other components, going by the OP proposition, the rule should only allow $props.propName but I'm not sure if that's a good idea because:

1. This would have to be implemented for prop accesses in script too for consistency.
2. Since $-prefixed variables are considered low level, maybe having them all over your codebase would not be ideal?
3. While this would help with delineating props and local state, it doesn't do much in terms of reducing magic (where's $props coming from?).

[TheAlexLichter]

I'd go even a step further and customize the option to enforce props. as prefix or disallow it. That way, people can choose if they want the overhead but have clear indication of a prop in the template or the simplicity instead.