Using `CLIEngine` Options for Defining a Configuration are not Fully Explained in the Docs.

What version of ESLint are you using?

eslint v3.0.0

What parser (default, Babel-ESLint, etc.) are you using?

default parser

Please show your full configuration:

(loaded via the CLIEngine options)

{
  'parserOptions': {
    'ecmaVersion': 6,
    'ecmaFeatures': {
        'jsx': true,
        'impliedStrict': true
    },
    env: {
      'es6': true,
      'node': true,
      'mocha': true,
      'browser': true
    },
    rules: {
      // all rules are included
    }
}

What did you do? Please include the actual source code causing the issue.

I’m trying to correctly configure the CLIEngine in a project without a root .eslintrc.* or eslintConfig property in package.json, but does contain a nested .eslintrc.* file. From what I understand from the docs, the 3 available options for my scenario are configFile, baseConfig and useSpecificConfig.

Can anyone validate that these are the expected results?

1. baseConfig has lower precedence than project root .eslintrc.* file (including descendent .eslintrc.* files). Therefore, the object passed to baseConfig can be extended (this not addressed in Configuration Cascading and Hierarchy)?
2. baseConfig does not satisfy the “requires configuration to run” rule.
3. useSpecificConfig does not satisfy the “requires configuration to run” rule (the opposite is stated in Requiring Configuration to Run).
4. useSpecificConfig only accepts an object (this option is not documented in the CLIEngine section).

What did you expect to happen?

a. I expected useSpecificConfig to satisfy the “requires configuration to run” rule.

b. I expected to ascertain the precedence of useSpecificConfig since it’s not documented.

c. I expected that baseConfig would satisfy the “requires configuration to run” rule as it represents a configuration.

What actually happened? Please include the actual, raw output from ESLint.

The opposite results of what is stated in points a, b and c above.

[platinumazure]

Alright folks, I’ll work on this. Here’s how I’m going to do this:

1. Create a PR to fix the currently inaccurate migration guide docs (remove useSpecificConfig).
   • This is found here: #6618
2. Create a PR to allow baseConfig as a configuration and add that information to the migration guide.
   • This is found here: #6625

Let me know if there are any questions or concerns with this approach.

[platinumazure]

@nzakas Now that #6618 is merged, I should be able to open the second PR today or tonight. I’ve already committed the changes to a branch.

EDIT: This is done, see #6625.