feat: support for files which extend ignored words and/or identifiers #1403
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 18690103694Details
💛 - Coveralls |
|
Converting to a Draft as there isn't anything decided in #931 yet. |
|
Yep my bad meant to make it a draft |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is an initial, very basic implementation for a solution that can hopefully close #931
Basically we just parse the given file(s) for either identifiers or words, simply broken up by any white space, and use that to extend the words/identifiers, which is how I saw it done for the ignore words/identifiers from the file-specific configurations.
Currently there's no logic for considering something an invalid entry (e.g. multiple "words" per line), which I know was discussed in that issue but I'm not sure is necessary.
Just let me know if you want me to take a different approach, or if it needs refactoring etc. and I'll gladly make any changes. First time really working with this code so I'm not too familiar with it.