67 lines
2.4 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

== Why is this an issue?
Many of JavaScript's ``++Array++`` methods return an altered version of the array while leaving the source array intact. ``++reverse++`` and ``++sort++`` do not fall into this category. Instead, they alter the source array _in addition to_ returning the altered version, which is likely not what was intended.
2021-04-28 16:49:39 +02:00
This rule raises an issue when the return values of these methods are assigned, which could lead maintainers to overlook the fact that the original value is altered.
=== Noncompliant code example
2021-04-28 16:49:39 +02:00
2022-02-04 17:28:24 +01:00
[source,javascript]
2021-04-28 16:49:39 +02:00
----
const reversed = a.reverse(); // Noncompliant
const sorted = b.sort(); // Noncompliant
2021-04-28 16:49:39 +02:00
----
=== Compliant solution
2021-04-28 16:49:39 +02:00
2022-02-04 17:28:24 +01:00
[source,javascript]
2021-04-28 16:49:39 +02:00
----
const reversed = [...a].reverse(); // spread the contents of 'a' into a new array, so reverse doesn't impact 'a'
const reversed2 = a.toReversed(); // ES2023 method that copies and reverses the array
a.reverse(); // reverse the array in place
2021-04-28 16:49:39 +02:00
const sorted = [...b].sort(); // spread the contents of 'b' into a new array, so sort doesn't impact 'b'
const sorted2 = b.toSorted(); // ES2023 method that copies and sorts the array
b.sort(); // sort the array in place
2021-04-28 16:49:39 +02:00
----
ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)
=== Message
Move this array "{0}" operation to a separate statement.
=== Highlighting
``++x.reverse()++``
'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)
=== on 28 Jul 2017, 14:20:42 Elena Vilchik wrote:
I've put the rule back to Sonar Way as we removed more code-smelly case ``++a = a.reverse();++`` from the scope (moved to RSPEC-1656).
=== on 16 Jan 2020, 10:23:52 Tibor Blenessy wrote:
Changed to code smell, we can't be sure that the code has a bug, and from issues we find it seems that more often it's not the case
=== on 14 Mar 2021, 11:23:01 JounQin wrote:
Hi, I tried this in SonarJS, it seems `items?.sort()` reports while `items.sort()` does not which is unexpected.
What means this rule is not compatible with `optional chaining`.
=== on 15 Mar 2021, 16:56:59 Tibor Blenessy wrote:
\[~JounQin] I created issue from your report \https://github.com/SonarSource/SonarJS/issues/2513 , however please use our community forum in the future \https://community.sonarsource.com/ , this JIRA project should not be used to report specific implementation issues, as it is agnostic about the language.
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]