rspec/rules/S3513/javascript/comments-and-links.adoc

=== on 19 Feb 2016, 11:12:14 Elena Vilchik wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I don't think that tag ``++api-design++`` is good here. What ever way you use arguments in function declaration, the way to call this function is the same. 

=== on 19 Feb 2016, 14:28:02 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~elena.vilchik] it should be clear from the function declaration what you need to pass into it. Declaring a no-args function and expecting args in it is crap design IMO.

=== on 24 Apr 2017, 11:54:57 Elena Vilchik wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] Don't you mind making severity ``++minor++``?
Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== on 19 Feb 2016, 11:12:14 Elena Vilchik wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			\[~ann.campbell.2] I don't think that tag ``++api-design++`` is good here. What ever way you use arguments in function declaration, the way to call this function is the same.

Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== on 19 Feb 2016, 14:28:02 Ann Campbell wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			`\[~elena.vilchik] it should be clear from the function declaration what you need to pass into it. Declaring a no-args function and expecting args in it is crap design IMO.`

Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== on 24 Apr 2017, 11:54:57 Elena Vilchik wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			\[~ann.campbell.2] Don't you mind making severity ``++minor++``?