Feel free to reject the PR if you think it's not necessary.
Then we should remove @remix-run/eslint-config from package.json instead.
I realized @remix-run/eslint-config is installed but not used.
So I set it up by referring to the page above and run npm run lint:fix.
※I'll install "@testing-library/react" in another PR, by the way.
I'm not 100% certain using this config is a good practice (considering it's a part of remix package, it seems to be though).
I've never used the import type { PaymentProps } from './Payment' style, which the config enforces, but I've seen the syntax here and there in the repo.
In that sense, keeping consistent formatting is good.
The following is results of npm run lint before and after the change.
before the change:
✖ 51 problems (0 errors, 51 warnings)
0 errors and 1 warning potentially fixable with the `--fix` option.
after adding @remix-run/eslint-config to .eslintrc:
✖ 105 problems (4 errors, 101 warnings)
0 errors and 50 warnings potentially fixable with the `--fix` option.
after npm run lint:fix was run:
✖ 52 problems (0 errors, 52 warnings)
0 errors and 1 warning potentially fixable with the `--fix` option.
Feel free to reject the PR if you think it's not necessary. Then we should remove
@remix-run/eslint-config
from package.json instead.I realized @remix-run/eslint-config is installed but not used. So I set it up by referring to the page above and run
npm run lint:fix
. ※I'll install"@testing-library/react"
in another PR, by the way.I'm not 100% certain using this config is a good practice (considering it's a part of remix package, it seems to be though).
I've never used the
import type { PaymentProps } from './Payment'
style, which the config enforces, but I've seen the syntax here and there in the repo. In that sense, keeping consistent formatting is good.The following is results of
npm run lint
before and after the change.before the change:
after adding
@remix-run/eslint-config
to.eslintrc
:after
npm run lint:fix
was run: