dan/oxc
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/danbulant/oxc synced 2026-05-24 12:21:58 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

fix(linter): improve the span message for no-accumulating-spread

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Boshen 2023-12-12 16:28:37 +08:00
parent ea293c4e94
commit 117d95f0ae
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 234DA6A7079C6801
2 changed files with 66 additions and 75 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

17
crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/oxc/no_accumulating_spread.rs
View file

@ -21,22 +21,13 @@ use crate::{
enum NoAccumulatingSpreadDiagnostic {
#[error("oxc(no-accumulating-spread): Do not spread accumulators in Array.prototype.reduce()")]
#[diagnostic(severity(warning), help("It looks like you're spreading an `Array`. Consider using the `Array.push` or `Array.concat` methods to mutate the accumulator instead.\nUsing spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity."))]
LikelyArray(
#[label("The accumulator is spread here.")] Span,
#[label("From a reduce call here.")] Span,
),
LikelyArray(#[label("From this spread")] Span, #[label("For this reduce")] Span),
#[error("oxc(no-accumulating-spread): Do not spread accumulators in Array.prototype.reduce()")]
#[diagnostic(severity(warning), help("It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.\nUsing spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity."))]
LikelyObject(
#[label("The accumulator is spread here.")] Span,
#[label("From a reduce call here.")] Span,
),
LikelyObject(#[label("From this spread")] Span, #[label("For this reduce")] Span),
#[error("oxc(no-accumulating-spread): Do not spread accumulators in Array.prototype.reduce()")]
#[diagnostic(severity(warning), help("Consider using `Object.assign()` or `Array.prototype.push()` to mutate the accumulator instead.\nUsing spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity."))]
Unknown(
#[label("The accumulator is spread here.")] Span,
#[label("From a reduce call here.")] Span,
),
Unknown(#[label("From this spread")] Span, #[label("For this reduce")] Span),
}
#[derive(Debug, Default, Clone)]
@ -62,7 +53,7 @@ declare_oxc_lint!(
/// function fn (x) {
/// // ...
/// }
///
///
/// arr.reduce((acc, x) => acc.push(fn(x)), [])
/// Object.keys(obj).reduce((acc, el) => {
/// acc[el] = fn(el)

124
crates/oxc_linter/src/snapshots/no_accumulating_spread.snap
View file

@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ Object.keys(obj).reduce((acc, key) => ({ ...acc, [key]: obj[key] }), {})
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -16,8 +16,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ Object.keys(obj).reduce((acc, key) => ({ ...acc, [key]: obj[key] }), ({} as foo))
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ Object.keys(obj).reduce((acc, key) => ({ ...acc, [key]: obj[key] }), foo)
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: Consider using `Object.assign()` or `Array.prototype.push()` to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -36,8 +36,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ arr.reduce((acc, x) => ({ ...acc, [x]: x }), {})
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -46,8 +46,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ arr.reduce((differentName, x) => ({ ...differentName, [x]: x }), {})
· ───┬── ────────┬───────
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -56,8 +56,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ a.b.arr.reduce((acc, x) => ({ ...acc, [x]: x }), {})
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -66,8 +66,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ a.b.arr.reduce((acc, x) => ({ ...acc, [x]: x }), (({} as baz)))
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -76,8 +76,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ a.b.arr.reduce((acc, x) => ({ ...acc, [x]: x }), (({})))
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -86,8 +86,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ a.b.c.d.reduce((acc,x) => ([...acc, x]), [])
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Array`. Consider using the `Array.push` or `Array.concat` methods to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -96,8 +96,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ a.b.c.d.reduce((acc,x) => ([...acc, x]), ([]))
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Array`. Consider using the `Array.push` or `Array.concat` methods to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -106,8 +106,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ a.b.c.d.reduce((acc,x) => ([...acc, x]), ([] as foo))
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Array`. Consider using the `Array.push` or `Array.concat` methods to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -116,8 +116,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ a.b.c.d.reduce((acc,x) => ([...acc, x]), (([]) as foo))
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Array`. Consider using the `Array.push` or `Array.concat` methods to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -126,8 +126,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ get_array().reduce((acc, x) => ({ ...acc, [x]: x }), {})
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -136,8 +136,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ arr.reduce(function (acc, x) { return { ...acc, [x]: x } }, {})
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -146,10 +146,10 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ arr.reduce((acc, x) => {
· ───┬──
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· ╰── For this reduce
2 │ let temp = { ...acc, x }
· ───┬──
· ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From this spread
3 │ return temp
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
@ -159,8 +159,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduce((acc, bar) => [...acc, bar], [])
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Array`. Consider using the `Array.push` or `Array.concat` methods to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -169,8 +169,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduceRight((acc, bar) => [...acc, bar], [])
· ─────┬───── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Array`. Consider using the `Array.push` or `Array.concat` methods to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -179,8 +179,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduce((acc, bar) => {return [...acc, bar];}, [])
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Array`. Consider using the `Array.push` or `Array.concat` methods to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -189,8 +189,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduceRight((acc, bar) => {return [...acc, bar];}, [])
· ─────┬───── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Array`. Consider using the `Array.push` or `Array.concat` methods to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -199,8 +199,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduce((acc, bar) => [...acc, ...bar], [])
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Array`. Consider using the `Array.push` or `Array.concat` methods to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -209,8 +209,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduceRight((acc, bar) => [...acc, ...bar], [])
· ─────┬───── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Array`. Consider using the `Array.push` or `Array.concat` methods to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -219,8 +219,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduce((acc, bar) => {return [...acc, ...bar];}, [])
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Array`. Consider using the `Array.push` or `Array.concat` methods to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -229,8 +229,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduceRight((acc, bar) => {return [...acc, ...bar];}, [])
· ─────┬───── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Array`. Consider using the `Array.push` or `Array.concat` methods to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -239,8 +239,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduce((acc, bar) => ({...acc, [bar.key]: bar.value}), {})
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -249,8 +249,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduceRight((acc, bar) => ({...acc, [bar.key]: bar.value}), {})
· ─────┬───── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -259,8 +259,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduce((acc, bar) => {return {...acc, [bar.key]: bar.value};}, {})
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -269,8 +269,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduceRight((acc, bar) => {return {...acc, [bar.key]: bar.value};}, {})
· ─────┬───── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -279,8 +279,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduce((acc, bar) => ({...acc, ...bar}), {})
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -289,8 +289,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduceRight((acc, bar) => ({...acc, ...bar}), {})
· ─────┬───── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -299,8 +299,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduce((acc, bar) => {return {...acc, ...bar};}, {})
· ───┬── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.
@ -309,8 +309,8 @@ expression: no_accumulating_spread
╭─[no_accumulating_spread.tsx:1:1]
1 │ foo.reduceRight((acc, bar) => {return {...acc, ...bar};}, {})
· ─────┬───── ───┬──
· │ ╰── The accumulator is spread here.
· ╰── From a reduce call here.
· │ ╰── From this spread
· ╰── For this reduce
╰────
help: It looks like you're spreading an `Object`. Consider using the `Object.assign` or assignment operators to mutate the accumulator instead.
Using spreads within accumulators leads to `O(n^2)` time complexity.