Flo Edelmann
Flo Edelmann
Indeed, it looks like type definitions that are exported will erroneously be reported as errors. A pull request to fix this is welcome :slightly_smiling_face: Please also add a test case...
@Ky6uk Note that in your case, you probably don't need to export the type definition. Just declaring it should probably also work fine, and should not cause this issue.
I'm not sure if that's a good idea. I think most people use the `recommended` config and they would need to enable dozens of rules manually, which is quite a...
CC @dev1437 and @amiranagram, follow-up to #1832 and #1966.
I don't think a regex would be very readable for this use case, and also: [Don't parse HTML with regex](https://stackoverflow.com/a/1732454) :wink: I like the `prevMulti` / `prevSingle` / `nextMulti` /...
@Nicolas-Yazzoom Yes, they are functionally equivalent.
CC @dev1437 and @amiranagram, follow-up to #1832 and #1966.
@mesqueeb We can't just merge and release a non-tested feature. If you can't test it in a repo, maybe you can have a look at test cases in the PR...
I think your example code is fine. But this would not be: ```js setup(props, { attrs, slots }) { const { slotFoo, slotBar } = slots const { id, hidden...
We have a similar rule: https://eslint.vuejs.org/rules/no-setup-props-destructure.html Maybe it could be modified to also check attrs and slots.