Skip to content

Conversation

JoshMock
Copy link
Member

As titled. 🚀

@JoshMock JoshMock marked this pull request as ready for review May 23, 2025 17:33
@JoshMock JoshMock requested a review from a team as a code owner May 23, 2025 19:41
@flobernd
Copy link
Member

Looks very promising @JoshMock ! Very good work.

I will try to write some rules next week.

It's probably worth experimenting with that foundation a bit in order to identify recurring patterns for whose it might be worth providing high level helper functions / abstractions for as part of the spec validator "SDK".

@flobernd flobernd added the skip-backport This pull request should not be backported label May 24, 2025
@JoshMock
Copy link
Member Author

It's probably worth experimenting with that foundation a bit in order to identify recurring patterns for whose it might be worth providing high level helper functions / abstractions for as part of the spec validator "SDK".

I agree, and would be happy to add that, but I think it would require some discussion to make sure I (or whoever implements it) am correctly targeting the correct problems. It's probably a lot easier to for someone on the static language side to list those problems, because many of them we don't run into as often on the dynamic side. 😄

@flobernd Would it be worth merging this as-is so we can iterate on it, or do you think more SDK tooling is a hard requirement?

@flobernd
Copy link
Member

@JoshMock Oh let's absolutely merge this first, before we work on the follow up tasks 🙂 That comment was not meant to get addressed immediately.

@flobernd
Copy link
Member

I just approved!

@JoshMock JoshMock merged commit 1302eb5 into main Jun 2, 2025
8 checks passed
@JoshMock JoshMock deleted the eslint-validator branch June 2, 2025 18:08
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
skip-backport This pull request should not be backported specification
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants