[eslint-plugin-react-hooks] allow for underscore prefixed component names #33131
Conversation
…ames
When wrapping components in React.memo(), it's common for the "inner" component
(a named function) to have the same name as the "outer" component (variable
declaration) with an underscore prefixed.
This makes viewing the component hierarchy in the React DevTools much easier,
as otherwise an anonymous function would have to be used which is less clear.
This solves the following currently open issue:
facebook#31722
|
Hi @scallaway! Thank you for your pull request and welcome to our community. Action RequiredIn order to merge any pull request (code, docs, etc.), we require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and we don't seem to have one on file for you. ProcessIn order for us to review and merge your suggested changes, please sign at https://code.facebook.com/cla. If you are contributing on behalf of someone else (eg your employer), the individual CLA may not be sufficient and your employer may need to sign the corporate CLA. Once the CLA is signed, our tooling will perform checks and validations. Afterwards, the pull request will be tagged with If you have received this in error or have any questions, please contact us at cla@meta.com. Thanks! |
|
Thank you for signing our Contributor License Agreement. We can now accept your code for this (and any) Meta Open Source project. Thanks! |
|
@eps1lon Sorry for the tag, but is this something we can look to get through (given it's small)? It has real-world benefits for our workplace as it'll reduce the number of changes we need to make to conform with the ESLint plugin as of version 5. |
|
Sure, that's another solution. I feel it's not super uncommon to prefix with an underscore, however. |
When wrapping components in React.memo(), it's common for the "inner" component (a named function) to have the same name as the "outer" component (variable declaration) with an underscore prefixed.
This makes viewing the component hierarchy in the React DevTools much easier, as otherwise an anonymous function would have to be used which is less clear.
This solves the following currently open issue: