16 lines
962 B
Plaintext
16 lines
962 B
Plaintext
|
=== On 2017-07-28T14:20:42Z 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 2020-01-16T10:23:52Z 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 2021-03-14T11:23:01.382Z 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 2021-03-15T16:56:59.583Z 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.
|
||
|
|
|