feat: support explicit resource management in no-undef-init
#19894
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
✅ Deploy Preview for docs-eslint ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
19 tasks
aladdin-add
approved these changes
Jun 29, 2025
1 task
snitin315
approved these changes
Jun 30, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Prerequisites checklist
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to an item)
[ ] Documentation update
[ ] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[x] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofix to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[ ] Add something to the core
[ ] Other, please explain:
Refs #19792, adds support for explicit resource management to the
no-undef-initrule.What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
Updates the
no-undef-initrule to not report on initializingusingandawait usingvariables toundefined.Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
Omitting the initializer would be a syntax error. Whether or not it makes sense to unconditionally initialize
usingandawait usingvariables toundefinedshouldn't be a responsibility of this rule, I think, because this rule is just stylistic. We could consider adding another rule that disallows this pattern as a possible error.