Revert: feat(eslint-plugin): [no-unnecessary-type-arguments] report inferred required types using assignability API (#11918)#12199
Conversation
…nferred required types using assignability API (#11918)
|
Thanks for the PR, @bradzacher! typescript-eslint is a 100% community driven project, and we are incredibly grateful that you are contributing to that community. The core maintainers work on this in their personal time, so please understand that it may not be possible for them to review your work immediately. Thanks again! 🙏 Please, if you or your company is finding typescript-eslint valuable, help us sustain the project by sponsoring it transparently on https://opencollective.com/typescript-eslint. |
✅ Deploy Preview for typescript-eslint ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
|
View your CI Pipeline Execution ↗ for commit 3d8223b
☁️ Nx Cloud last updated this comment at |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #12199 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 86.72% 86.70% -0.03%
==========================================
Files 512 512
Lines 16290 16265 -25
Branches 5070 5058 -12
==========================================
- Hits 14128 14103 -25
Misses 1474 1474
Partials 688 688
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Align with typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint#12199 by reverting the #853 port of inferred-type reporting. Keep the later default-type equivalence fix from #862. Validation: - go test ./internal/rules/no_unnecessary_type_arguments/... - cd e2e && pnpm test --run snapshot.test.ts fixes oxc-project/oxc#21464 fixes #875 fixes oxc-project/oxc#21096 fises oxc-project/oxc#20933

PR Checklist
Overview
This reverts #11918 (and the fix for it #12163)
The change had a larger blast radius than intended and has caused a lot of problems for users.
To expedite a fix for it we're reverting the change.
The core team discussed this internally and we think there's value in the change. However it needs to be reworked so that parts of it are behind an option (or removed). This discussion and rework will take time -- hence revert and then rework.