I was wondering if it would be *generally* useful to allow specification of an external configuration via an inline comment? For example, if the following comment was present in a source file:
/* eslint-config path/to/my-config */ it would be equivalent to specifying said external configuration via the CLI's --config option. Here's the use case where I found myself thinking I needed such a feature... Consider the following contrived project layout: my-project ├── client │ ├── .eslintrc.json │ └── client.js ├── server │ ├── .eslintrc.json │ └── server.js ├── .eslintrc.json ├── .eslintrc-gulpfile.json └── gulpfile.js I want *client.js* and *server.js* to use the configuration in their sibling *.eslintrc.json*, which inherit the configuration in the parent *.eslintrc.json*. However, I want *gulpfile.js* to use the configuration in *.eslintrc-gulpfile.json*. This isn't a problem during my build process because I can run two separate ESLint tasks: one for *client.js* and *server.js* that uses the default configuration hierarchy and one for *gulpfile.js* where I explicitly specify the configuration via --config. I run into a problem when using the Atom linter-eslint plugin. That plugin relies on running ESLint without an explicit configuration, thus the configuration hierarchy is employed. In my case, this results in using the *.eslintrc.json* configuration sibling to *gulpfile.js*, which then produces many false positives/negatives within Atom. So my theory is that by adding a feature like the eslint-config comment described above, the Atom linter-eslint plugin will Just Work because the ESLint engine will correctly pick up the desired external configuration. There's obviously a bunch of unanswered questions as to the behavior of the eslint-config comment in the presence of other configuration comments, but I was just curious if even the thought of specifying an external configuration via an inline comment is just a Bad Idea. (I'm open to any other alternatives for getting the Atom linter-eslint plugin to work as desired. The most obvious suggestion would be to simply inline the entire configuration within *gulpfile.js*, but the *.eslintrc-gulpfile.json* configuration in my case extends other configurations, and thus we've come full circle as there does not appear to be a way to extend a shareable configuration via an inline comment.) Thanks, Steve -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ESLint" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
