Ignore error signatures via regexp #21
Merged
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
|
G'day Tim, Thanks a lot for the contribution. Looks good, appreciate the included tests as well. Everything looks straightforward so will merge and cut a new release shortly. Cheers! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hi,
First off, thank you for writing this linter. I can definitely see it catching some critical problems in some of my code bases before they get out to production.
One thing that I ran into, however, was that I have some signatures that I'd like to ignore and follow a distinct pattern, but the pattern isn't uniform enough to use the substring filtering included in the linter. So this change introduces regular expression filtering to give a little bit more flexibility for such cases. It's basically a generalized form of the
ignoreSigsconfiguration. But I kept it separate so as to guarantee backwards compatibility.I added some tests and it appears to work pretty well. Definitely open to feedback on it.
Thank you!
-Tim