mirror of
https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js.git
synced 2025-04-25 09:38:06 +02:00
Switch to using ESLint, instead of JSHint, for linting
*Please note that most of the necessary code adjustments were made in PR 7890.* ESLint has a number of advantageous properties, compared to JSHint. Among those are: - The ability to find subtle bugs, thanks to more rules (e.g. PR 7881). - Much more customizable in general, and many rules allow fine-tuned behaviour rather than the just the on/off rules in JSHint. - Many more rules that can help developers avoid bugs, and a lot of rules that can be used to enforce a consistent coding style. The latter should be particularily useful for new contributors (and reduce the amount of stylistic review comments necessary). - The ability to easily specify exactly what rules to use/not to use, as opposed to JSHint which has a default set. *Note:* in future JSHint version some of the rules we depend on will be removed, according to warnings in http://jshint.com/docs/options/, so we wouldn't be able to update without losing lint coverage. - More easily disable one, or more, rules temporarily. In JSHint this requires using a numeric code, which isn't very user friendly, whereas in ESLint the rule name is simply used instead. By default there's no rules enabled in ESLint, but there are some default rule sets available. However, to prevent linting failures if we update ESLint in the future, it seemed easier to just explicitly specify what rules we want. Obviously this makes the ESLint config file somewhat bigger than the old JSHint config file, but given how rarely that one has been updated over the years I don't think that matters too much. I've tried, to the best of my ability, to ensure that we enable the same rules for ESLint that we had for JSHint. Furthermore, I've also enabled a number of rules that seemed to make sense, both to catch possible errors *and* various style guide violations. Despite the ESLint README claiming that it's slower that JSHint, https://github.com/eslint/eslint#how-does-eslint-performance-compare-to-jshint, locally this patch actually reduces the runtime for `gulp` lint (by approximately 20-25%). A couple of stylistic rules that would have been nice to enable, but where our code currently differs to much to make it feasible: - `comma-dangle`, controls trailing commas in Objects and Arrays (among others). - `object-curly-spacing`, controls spacing inside of Objects. - `spaced-comment`, used to enforce spaces after `//` and `/*. (This is made difficult by the fact that there's still some usage of the old preprocessor left.) Rules that I indend to look into possibly enabling in follow-ups, if it seems to make sense: `no-else-return`, `no-lonely-if`, `brace-style` with the `allowSingleLine` parameter removed. Useful links: - http://eslint.org/docs/user-guide/configuring - http://eslint.org/docs/rules/
This commit is contained in:
parent
b629be05bd
commit
2f3805efbc
63 changed files with 214 additions and 107 deletions
|
@ -248,29 +248,29 @@ var Parser = (function ParserClosure() {
|
|||
case 0xC1: // SOF1
|
||||
case 0xC2: // SOF2
|
||||
case 0xC3: // SOF3
|
||||
|
||||
/* falls through */
|
||||
case 0xC5: // SOF5
|
||||
case 0xC6: // SOF6
|
||||
case 0xC7: // SOF7
|
||||
|
||||
/* falls through */
|
||||
case 0xC9: // SOF9
|
||||
case 0xCA: // SOF10
|
||||
case 0xCB: // SOF11
|
||||
|
||||
/* falls through */
|
||||
case 0xCD: // SOF13
|
||||
case 0xCE: // SOF14
|
||||
case 0xCF: // SOF15
|
||||
|
||||
/* falls through */
|
||||
case 0xC4: // DHT
|
||||
case 0xCC: // DAC
|
||||
|
||||
/* falls through */
|
||||
case 0xDA: // SOS
|
||||
case 0xDB: // DQT
|
||||
case 0xDC: // DNL
|
||||
case 0xDD: // DRI
|
||||
case 0xDE: // DHP
|
||||
case 0xDF: // EXP
|
||||
|
||||
/* falls through */
|
||||
case 0xE0: // APP0
|
||||
case 0xE1: // APP1
|
||||
case 0xE2: // APP2
|
||||
|
@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ var Parser = (function ParserClosure() {
|
|||
case 0xED: // APP13
|
||||
case 0xEE: // APP14
|
||||
case 0xEF: // APP15
|
||||
|
||||
/* falls through */
|
||||
case 0xFE: // COM
|
||||
// The marker should be followed by the length of the segment.
|
||||
markerLength = stream.getUint16();
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue