fix(eslint-plugin): eslint rules not found#226
Conversation
| import rules from '../rules'; | ||
|
|
||
| const commonConfig: TSESLint.FlatConfig.Config = { | ||
| files: ['*.ts, *.js'], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unbelieveable: I have checked that line before but didn't see the issue.
Following my tests, the line must be like that:
files: ['**/*.ts', '**/*.js'],There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh yes, you're right. I will update my PR :)
|
@weberhofer @michaelbe812, Thanks again. I am currently on holiday and have therefore limited availability (I can still publish the lib). My primary concern is the following: We have so many integration tests, but why did none of them fail? If our tests failed this case completely, we should probably also add one. |
Incorrect file pattern caused that the eslint rules could not be found Fixes softarc-consulting#225
f91e828 to
6412fa7
Compare
|
This is also what I am wondering about. Somehow I have the feeling that something's wrong with the integration tests. I'll try to check |
|
I think the old file definitions worked on older eslint versions. My configurations broke after eslint 9.30.1. Integration tests seem to use eslint 8.x versions. |
|
@michaelbe812, I'd like to push two new integration tests to your branch. One will run |
Great idea 💡 this will definitely add some more safety nets. I'm just asking myself if it would not be enough to just scaffold minimal projects with each eslint version which should be supported instead of full-blown nx and angular workspaces? |
|
So it should only be the minimal angular app that no and cli generate. Not the full blown ones we already have. but I think it is important to verify if someone runs a new ng new that sheriff works as expected. |
|
Since I haven't been able to come up with the integration tests and we have a blocker here, I merged the fix and published. Integration tests will be done in a separate, follow-up issue. Thanks @michaelbe812 and @weberhofer for fixing this. |



From what I have seen the issue #225 is caused by an incorrect file pattern which was introduced in commit #837d792
Fixes #225