Rule proposal: `consistent-conditional-object-spread`

[zanminkian]

Description

When spreading an object conditionally, we have two style: ? : and &&. I prefer user consistently to use &&.

Pass

const name = Math.random() > 0.5 'foo' : undefined;
const student = {age: 12, ...(name&&{name})};

Fail

const name = Math.random() > 0.5 'foo' : undefined;
const student = {age: 12, ...(name ? {name} : {})};

Proposed rule name

consistent-conditional-object-spread

Additional Info

No response

[fisker]

This kind of like short circuit

foo && bar();

But I prefer

if (foo) {
    bar();
}

So I prefer the ternary version, but I use {...(name ? {name} : undefined)}

[sindresorhus]

I prefer && too in this case. There is really no benefit of the verbose ternary version. However, it should include an option to choose the style.

[fisker]

ONE benefit in werid JavaScript world.

({...(document.all && {foo: 1})})

// VS

({...(document.all ? {foo: 1} : undefined)})

Just kidding.

[zanminkian]

From my point of view, this rule only work when the variable name is the same as the property name. For example:

Work:

const student = {...(name?{name}:{})}
// or
const student = {...(name&&{name})}

Not work:

const student = {...(name?{age}:{})}
// or
const student = {...(name&&{age})}

[fisker]

this rule only work when the variable name is the same as the property name.

I don't think so, the name doesn't matter. Spread any falsely value in object literal does not add any property (of cause except HTMLDDA).

[sindresorhus]

Accepted