avoid_positional_boolean_parameters is only triggered by public methods

[pitazzo]

Hi there,
I've just noticed that the avoid_positional_boolean_parameters rule only is checked for the public methods of a given class. I don't know if this is a bug or a feature, but in my opinion it should work for both public and private methods, or at least, be configurable. Here is a minimal reproducible example:

class X {
  void bar() {
    foo(false);
    _faa(true);
  }

  // triggers the linter rule
  void foo(bool lele) {}

  // does not trigger the linter rule
  void _faa(bool lele) {}
}

[lrhn]

I'd personally prefer that it doesn't apply to members that are not part of a public API. Internal APIs may be written for briefness or simplicity over usability, and that's not a problem for anybody but the author themselves. If they're happy, there is no problem.

Public APIs also require everybody else to be happy too.

[pitazzo]

I see your point @lrhn, but even being a problem responsibility of the author of the library, I think it would be interesting to make the rule, at least, configurable. I myself, as the author of my own app, spent 2 hours yesterday debugging some boolean guards that I had passed in the wrong order. As an author, I think it is interesting that the linter warns of such problems, as it is easy to forget until problems arise.

[bwilkerson]

The description doesn't make the intent clear, but the code, in multiple places, explicitly excludes private members, so I have to assume that it's intentional.

We don't support configuring lint rules.

The only alternative I can think of, though I don't really like it, would be to define an equivalent lint for private members and document the connection between the two.

[FMorschel]

I do believe that this lint should trigger on private members as well. Here is a snippet of a comment that srawlins made in another issue

// ignore: is a great tool, and sends a strong signal, "I know this is unused, but I want to keep it."

According to what you said above:

We don't support configuring lint rules.

Since there are ignore, ignore_for_file, and even analyzer configs on analysis_options.yaml I don't think that is entirely true. Maybe there could be something similar to ignore to ignore private members, or even something similar inside here (analyzer config example):

analyzer:
  plugins:
    - dart_code_metrics
  language:
    strict-casts: true
    strict-inference: true
    strict-raw-types: true
  exclude:
    - "**/generated_plugin_registrant.dart"
    - "**.g.dart"
  errors:
    missing_required_param: error

In this example, I've added a plugin, configured the use of language lints, excluded paths where those lints will not trigger and changed the defining tone of a lint to error.

To my understanding, this is some kind of configuration similar to what was asked here.

[bwilkerson]

We don't support configuring lint rules.

Since there are ignore, ignore_for_file, and even analyzer configs on analysis_options.yaml I don't think that is entirely true.

I don't think of those affordances as ways to configure a lint because they don't change the behavior of the lint, only where and how it will be reported. They apply equally well to any warning or error.

The kinds of things that fall under 'configuration' (the way I think about it) are things that change the way a specific lint works, such as the (implied) 'include private APIs' flag mentioned above.

[FMorschel]

IMO this would be pretty similar to what exclude does in analyzer.

Say, we enable this lint to trigger on private APIs as well (which is why this issue was created from what I can gather, the way it is working now, it's unexpected), then if anyone doesn't want this lint to trigger on private APIs could simply add that to analysis_options.yaml.

[bwilkerson]

The distinction in my head between the definition of a 'general affordance' and a 'configuration' probably isn't worth worrying about, other than to understand that there are some things that I'd consider to be a 'configuration' that you migiht not, and it's the things that I'd consider to be a 'configuration' that we don't currently support.

Unfortunately, something like "whether or not to lint on non-public APIs" is one of those things that we don't currently support.

[FMorschel]

Do you believe that this could be discussed in a new issue? So that others can find it more easily and comment their opinions there as well.

One that would only request that configuration to be supported generally in some way?

Which repo would be the right one for that?

[bwilkerson]

The issue already exists: #57673.