Tools: 馃挱 Consider mandatory lint suppression explanations
sebmck
All 3 comments
If I understand this issue correctly, Rome would require suppression comments to include an explanation. I'm in favor of this; this wouldn't be too tedious during development where rules may be hastily turned off since a simple "wip" comment could be used until release.
bitpshr
on 14 Aug 2020
How would this interact with decisions that add suppression comments? Would they insert a placeholder explanation or would they insert incomplete suppressions that need to be manually corrected?
yassere
on 15 Aug 2020
@yassere Probably a default explanation of "suppressed via --review" when run via the CLI. In LSP we could just have "insert explanation here" or something. There's probably also something cool that could be done with --review where you could write the explanation there. A CLI flag would also be nice to skip having to input it completely. eg.
rome review --suppression-explanation "Upgrading to Rome 10.0.6-beta"
Related issues
yamadayuki
路
3Comments
arslivinski
路
5Comments
josephspurrier
路
4Comments
linvain
路
4Comments
ChristopherBiscardi
路
5Comments
Most helpful comment
@yassere Probably a default explanation of "suppressed via --review" when run via the CLI. In LSP we could just have "insert explanation here" or something. There's probably also something cool that could be done with
--reviewwhere you could write the explanation there. A CLI flag would also be nice to skip having to input it completely. eg.