Will this warn for constructs like var foo = obj.foo ? obj.foo : obj.bar;?

But then again that isn't always the same as obj.foo || obj.bar if obj.foo has side effects...

It only handles Identifier AST nodes. Like you pointed out, getters make things hairy.

I think we need to handle more than identifiers for this option. Really, anything to the left of ? that is also on the right behaves the same way.

Really, anything to the left of ? that is also on the right behaves the same way.

That's not necessarily true if the thing in question has side effects. I think it might be safe to add a few other expression types (this, array expressions, and object expressions with no getters or setters). Alternatively, we could blindly flag all matches, as it's probably not good programming practice in any scenario.

@cjihrig Even bare identifiers can have side effects if the references cannot be statically resolved. We have to draw the line somewhere. I think identifiers and static member access is enough.

FYI: If we would flag all matches, this can be used.

We kind of left this hanging. Thoughts on how to resolve?

Also, I think the option noDefaultAssignment is a bit ambiguous, probably need to rethink that.

I picked noDefaultAssignment based on identifying x = x || y, but to be honest I'm not crazy about the name and am open to suggestions.

I don't have any better ideas, so maybe we do defaultAssignment with a default value of true, and you can set it to false to flag it? (Trying to avoid double negatives.)

Got rid of the double negative.