Rule Improvement for maps - dollar-variable-colon-newline-after
See original GitHub issueCurrently enabling dollar-variable-colon-newline-after errors for:
$map: (
foo: value,
bar: value,
);
Though it’s nice and readable.
To fix it I’m forced to write:
$map:
(
foo: value,
bar: value,
);
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 6 years ago
- Comments:23 (1 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Rule Improvement for maps - dollar-variable-colon-newline-after
Currently enabling dollar-variable-colon-newline-after errors for: $map: ( foo: value, bar: value, ); Though it's nice and readable.
Read more >Improve data quality with attribute rules - Learn ArcGIS
Improve data quality with attribute rules. Create three types of attribute rules in ArcGIS Pro to accurately collect and maintain street light data....
Read more >Fiscal Rules Dataset - International Monetary Fund
What are Fiscal Rules? A fiscal rule is a long-lasting constraint on fiscal policy through numerical limits on budgetary aggregates. Fiscal rules typically ......
Read more >The Two Rules of Process Mapping - Accelerate
The Two Rules of Process Mapping. Process mapping is easy. But also hard. This is a common conundrum with value improvement.
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
This fix works great, but I’ve now discovered another use-case which I haven’t noticed before - function calls. I would like the following to be valid:
It’s a multi-line variable declaration, and isn’t a map (which this issue is about), but it’s a similar situation in spirit - moving the function call to the next line seems like it would decrease readability, rather than increase it.
What do you think about this? I see how these exceptions are only making the rule more complicated, but maybe an alternate approach would make sense, ie. whitelisting what the rule is about - personally, I (think I) only care about this rule when using lists as the variable value.
Hmm… yeah it seem that we would need more exceptions to the rule, maybe we should start thinking of putting the exceptions behind an option.