feat(biome_css_analyze): implement noDescendingSpecificity
#4097
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
A-Project
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since this rule takes the entire file into account, I think it would be better to split these tests into multiple files.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would be better that way as you said, so I split it at da0b219
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #4097 will degrade performances by 6.65%Comparing Summary
Benchmarks breakdown
|
crates/biome_css_analyze/src/lint/nursery/no_descending_specificity.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Thank you for your review. |
crates/biome_css_analyze/src/lint/nursery/no_descending_specificity.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
crates/biome_css_analyze/src/lint/nursery/no_descending_specificity.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| // | ||
| // Read our guidelines to write great diagnostics: | ||
| // https://docs.rs/biome_analyze/latest/biome_analyze/#what-a-rule-should-say-to-the-user | ||
| // |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please remove this comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed at 0dbdbd1
crates/biome_css_analyze/src/lint/nursery/no_descending_specificity.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Thank you for your review. Also, I noticed that the performance test in the CI is failing with my PR. But I'm not sure where to make the necessary changes as I lack knowledge. Could you please help me with this? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Given that the rule is applied to almost all selectors, I thought this regression was acceptable. Or it's ok to address it in a separate PR.
@chansuke @ematipico @dyc3 any thoughts?
|
Yeah, the regression seems acceptable to me too! |
Summary
Implement
noDescendingSpecificityand the specificity calculationclose #2810
Test Plan
Added tests and snapshots