Swiftlint: TODO & FIXME

Created on 3 Oct 2015  路  11Comments  路  Source: realm/SwiftLint

Why does the linter checks for TODO/FIXME statements? I thought you guys are using GitHub's Swift Style Guide as a guideline which has all rules explained.

If you add rules of your own, please document the reasoning behind it.

Most helpful comment

What I'd like to know is: Where is the reasoning behind this decision documented?

I added that in because IMO the role of a linter is to show you the parts of your code that need your attention and ultimately need to be fixed. TODOs and FIXMEs are one way to do this.

All 11 comments

If you'd like to disable this for your project you can add this to your .swiftlint.yml

disabled_rules:
  - todo

Also the readme says:

loosely based on GitHub's Swift Style Guide

So I don't think it's a huge deal as more rules are added to SwiftLint. Especially since they can be easily disabled.

I know how to disable it, thank you though.
What I'd like to know is: Where is the reasoning behind this decision documented?

What I'd like to know is: Where is the reasoning behind this decision documented?

I added that in because IMO the role of a linter is to show you the parts of your code that need your attention and ultimately need to be fixed. TODOs and FIXMEs are one way to do this.

@jpsim I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the reason for the warning is to actually show and bring the todo to your attention so that you may implement the actual todo? I ask because the warning given by swift-lint seems to be to not use TODO's.

Yes.

@jpsim The message given by Swift lint does not imply that though:

SwiftLint displays: "Todo Violation: TODOs should be avoided...."

If you have an improvement in mind, feel free to file a PR.

@jpsill Will do!

I also first thought that it discourages using TODOs but it actually encourages them by supporting them and making them more useful through this rule :D Maybe the message should be changed to "consider doing / fixing what the TODO suggests", though ^^

Pull Request #2069 has been added to fix this issue.

Was this page helpful?
0 / 5 - 0 ratings