Standardised messages and docs about stylelint HOT 6 CLOSED

Sounds good. One question: For e.g. number-leading-zero should the negative instead use "unexpected": "Unexpected leading zero for fractional value less than 1"??

from stylelint.

One question: For e.g. number-leading-zero should the negative instead use "unexpected": "Unexpected leading zero for fractional value less than 1"??

Yeap, I had that same thought just after I clicked "Comment"! :)

That works for me if we make the other "always"|"never" rules consistent too e.g.

• declaration-colon/bang-space: "Expected single space before "!"" and "Unexpected space before "!"
• declaration-block-trailing-semicolon: "Expected a trailing semicolon" and "Unexpected trailing semicolon"
• number-leading-zero: "Expected a leading zero for fractional value less than 1" and "Unexpected leading zero for fractional value less than 1"

When it comes to rules with values other than "always" and "never" I think we should tend towards "expected" over "unexpected" e.g.

url-quotes: "single"|"double"|none

We might need to create multiple rejected messages for each value if we use "unexpected" e.g.

For url-quotes: "single"

We'd need two rejected messages:

• "Unexpected double quotes for URL"
• "Unexpected lack of quotes for URL"

Where as, the "expected" approach would require just one rejected message for each value:

e.g. for url-quotes: "single"

We'd only need:

• "Expected single quotes for URL"

Sound good?

from stylelint.

Yes. I think "unexpected" (aka "rejected") is for situations where what's there is not ok but there is not a specific expected alternative. So url-quotes never "rejects" if it's on, because it's always expecting something specific. We're in agreement.

from stylelint.

We're in agreement.

Good stuff :)

from stylelint.

👍

from stylelint.

I can do this.

from stylelint.