Pedro Augusto de Paula Barbosa
Pedro Augusto de Paula Barbosa
@fisker I agree that a 'more urgent' action is to disable the auto-fix, but we don't want the rule mistakenly reporting errors anyway.
Hmmm, but if the lint rule gives so many false positives like this, should it really exist?
> I tried really hard to rewrite this rule , and you can see it did catch a lot of problems in #666 . Which problems? You mean like the...
Are you sure? The `isSuperExpression` is not bound to any `this` context either way. The real problem is something like `arr.find(object.method)` versus `arr.find(x => object.method(x))`. This is a real problem....
Oh, of course :man_facepalming: I had some headaches in the past due to the function losing its binding context, that I forgot to think about the parameter changes. Sorry about...
> should we do that ? You mean set it to warn? I don't think so... Error is good... The problem is false positives, setting to warn would still make...
What if the linting error itself provides a hint such as: > If you think this is a false positive, disable this check with `// eslint-disable-next-line unicorn/no-fn-reference-in-iterator`
Nice! I don't have time to do it though, sorry about that.
I'd also like to be able to rely on this from a security perspective
I noticed this problem when investigating another issue, I was already aware of this but didn't know there was an issue for it!