Fix selector-max-specificity end positions#7685
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: 56269fe The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
|
I will take a look at the coverage issue shortly. |
…c6d1a' of https://github.com/stylelint/stylelint into fix-selector-max-specificity--adventurous-pelican-112c3c6d1a
| code: ':nth-child(2n + 1) {}', | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| code: '[value] {}', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit
non-blocking
It's kind of contradictory.
i.e. that's the attribute name not its value
romainmenke
deleted the
fix-selector-max-specificity--adventurous-pelican-112c3c6d1a
branch
| // Check if the selector specificity exceeds the allowed maximum | ||
| if (compare(maxChildSpecificity(selectorTree), maxSpecificity) > 0) { | ||
| if (compare(nodeSpecificity(resolvedSelector), maxSpecificity) > 0) { | ||
| const index = selector.first?.sourceIndex ?? 0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[note] The coverage diff is caused by this line, but I think it's ignorable.
If improving the coverage, we might change it like this, but I'm unsure it's really safe...
| const index = selector.first?.sourceIndex ?? 0; | |
| const index = selector.first.sourceIndex; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I think it is safe in practice, but I'd rather keep it anyway.
If the AST is mutated without setting sourceIndex or if something clears out a selector it would throw errors.
But maybe we can add a helper so that we can document this better?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am fine with keeping it as-is, and I agree with adding a helper. 👍🏼
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I should actually fix this one : postcss/postcss-selector-parser#287
Then we change const index = selector.first?.sourceIndex ?? 0 to const index = selector.sourceIndex
3 participants
See : #6234
No, it's self-explanatory.