numeric-separators-style: option to accept numbers without grouping

I’m a big fan of the new numeric-separators-style rule from #833. Great idea!

I’d like to enable the numeric-separators-style rule to catch incorrect groupings without requiring that all numbers use separators. For example:

const foo = 1234;  // Pass: No separators
const bar = 1_234; // Pass: Correct grouping
const baz = 12_34; // Fail: Incorrect grouping

I couldn’t find a way to achieve this. Configuring minimum between 0 and 4, foo and baz fail. With minimum 5 or above, bar and baz fail.

Is this an feature that you might consider? If so, how to configure?

An idea: Additional options for each number type:

Name	Description
requireLeft	Require separators to the left of the decimal point for numbers with at least minimum digits to the left. (Current behavior: true)
requireRight	Require separators to the right of the decimal point for numbers with at least minimum digits to the right. (Current behavior: true)
forbidLeft	Forbid separators to the left of the decimal point for numbers with less than minimum digits to the left. (Current behavior: true)
forbidRight	Forbid separators to the right of the decimal point for numbers with less than minimum digits to the right. (Current behavior: true)

The desired example behavior could then be accomplished with requireLeft: false (to never require grouping) or something like minimum: 7, forbidLeft: false to require grouping 7-digits or more, but allow grouping fewer.

[noftaly]

I could imagine use cases/style guides which require grouping for numbers that exceed a certain size, so tried to cover that in my proposal.

Why not, but I think we should not add a ton of options for only one single rule, and keep the configuration clear… I’ll let the core team discuss on that 😄

Were you referring to the existing minimum configuration option or proposing a new minimumDigits option to address this issue? Could you clarify how minimumDigits would interact with minimum?

Yes sorry for the confusion, I was speaking about the minimum option. I will edit my comment to avoid confusing other peoples 🙂

[kevinoid]

To be honest, I don’t see why you want const foo = 1234; pass? That’s the point of this rule.

Because sometimes it’s desirable to catch incorrect/misleading grouping, but not to force minor style details everywhere? Regardless of the rationale, this rule already has the minimumDigits configuration option to support it. Part of the problem is that minimumDigits: 4 would make const foo = 1_234; invalid.

P.S. @noftaly I had minimum and minimumDigits confused. You had the right name all along. My bad.