You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The directive-comment rule has an issue with the way the regular expressions are calculated. Consider the following line: <!-- eslint-disable-next-line max-len -->
This should disable the rule max-len for the next line only. However, the current implementation disables the rule for the remainder of the file. This seems to be with the block regexp: const COMMENT_DIRECTIVE_B = /^\s*(eslint-(?:en|dis)able)\s*(?:(\S|\S[\s\S]*\S)\s*)?$/
This matches the above line as such: match[1] = 'eslint-disable' match[2] = '-next-line max-len'
and that gets passed as a successful parse, causing eslint to disable max-len for the remainder of the file.
I couldn't work out a good regexp that would match "eslint-disable" (with no space between the statement and the --> for the comment) correctly so another alternative fix would be to call processLine() first and if that is successful, don't call processBlock().
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
eslint-plugin-vue Version: 4.1.0
eslint Version: 4.14.0
The directive-comment rule has an issue with the way the regular expressions are calculated. Consider the following line:
<!-- eslint-disable-next-line max-len -->
This should disable the rule max-len for the next line only. However, the current implementation disables the rule for the remainder of the file. This seems to be with the block regexp:
const COMMENT_DIRECTIVE_B = /^\s*(eslint-(?:en|dis)able)\s*(?:(\S|\S[\s\S]*\S)\s*)?$/
This matches the above line as such:
match[1] = 'eslint-disable'
match[2] = '-next-line max-len'
and that gets passed as a successful parse, causing eslint to disable max-len for the remainder of the file.
I couldn't work out a good regexp that would match "eslint-disable" (with no space between the statement and the --> for the comment) correctly so another alternative fix would be to call processLine() first and if that is successful, don't call processBlock().
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: