Dave, how would you feel about deciding on one of those and allowing modules to opt-in to using them, perhaps just as an experiment. Presumably most existing modules wouldn't, but new ones being written might.
Dan 2017-10-18 9:06 GMT-07:00 Dave Townsend <dtowns...@mozilla.com>: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:51 AM Mark Banner <mban...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> I remember that we had bugs of this kind lurking for years in our >> codebase, in code that was triggered daily and that everybody believed >> to be tested. >> >> I'd like to think that there is a better way to handle these bugs, >> without waiting for them to explode in our user's face. Opening this >> thread to see if we can find a way to somehow "solve" these bugs, either >> by making them impossible, or by making them much easier to solve. >> >> ESLint has caught some bugs - mainly undefined and unused related issues, >> and is spread through most of the production javascript code. Unfortunately >> it isn't able to catch this class of error. For that, we'd need something >> like Flow. Last time I looked at it, it didn't feel like a good fit for us, >> although I didn't go too deep, and I think there may have been other people >> that were looking at it. >> > > As a datapoint, I've looked at both Flow and TypeScript. Both are good > tools that work well if you're writing code from scratch with them but for > existing code they flag many many pre-existing problems, the vast majority > of which aren't really problems just cases where the tools can't infer what > is going on without adding type info to the script. I came to the > conclusion that it would be too much work to use either in our main > codebase. > > > _______________________________________________ > firefox-dev mailing list > firefox-...@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/firefox-dev > > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
