return this.extractScripts().map(function(script) { return eval(script) });

Close

Disallow eval() (no-eval)

JavaScript's eval() function is potentially dangerous and is often misused. Using eval() on untrusted code can open a program up to several different injection attacks. The use of eval() in most contexts can be substituted for a better, alternative approach to a problem.

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at preventing potentially dangerous, unnecessary, and slow code by disallowing the use of the eval() function. As such, it will warn whenever the eval() function is used.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

(0, eval)("var a = 0");

var foo = eval;
foo("var a = 0");

// This `this` is the global object.
this.eval("var a = 0");

Example of additional incorrect code for this rule when browser environment is set to true:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env browser*/

window.eval("var a = 0");

Example of additional incorrect code for this rule when node environment is set to true:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env node*/

global.eval("var a = 0");

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = obj[key];

class A {
    foo() {
        // This is a user-defined method.
        this.eval("var a = 0");
    }

    eval() {
    }
}

Options

This rule has an option to allow indirect calls to eval. Indirect calls to eval are less dangerous than direct calls to eval because they cannot dynamically change the scope. Because of this, they also will not negatively impact performance to the degree of direct eval.

{
    "no-eval": ["error", {"allowIndirect": true}] // default is false
}

Example of incorrect code for this rule with the {"allowIndirect": true} option:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

Examples of correct code for this rule with the {"allowIndirect": true} option:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

(0, eval)("var a = 0");

var foo = eval;
foo("var a = 0");

this.eval("var a = 0");

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env browser*/

window.eval("var a = 0");

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env node*/

global.eval("var a = 0");

Known Limitations

• This rule is warning every eval() even if the eval is not global's. This behavior is in order to detect calls of direct eval. Such as:

module.exports = function(eval) {
      // If the value of this `eval` is built-in `eval` function, this is a
      // call of direct `eval`.
      eval("var a = 0");
  };

• This rule cannot catch renaming the global object. Such as:

var foo = window;
  foo.eval("var a = 0");

Further Reading

• Eval is Evil, Part One
• How evil is eval

Related Rules

• [no-implied-eval](no-implied-eval.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

      return eval((this.transport.responseText || '').unfilterJSON());

Close

Disallow eval() (no-eval)

JavaScript's eval() function is potentially dangerous and is often misused. Using eval() on untrusted code can open a program up to several different injection attacks. The use of eval() in most contexts can be substituted for a better, alternative approach to a problem.

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at preventing potentially dangerous, unnecessary, and slow code by disallowing the use of the eval() function. As such, it will warn whenever the eval() function is used.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

(0, eval)("var a = 0");

var foo = eval;
foo("var a = 0");

// This `this` is the global object.
this.eval("var a = 0");

Example of additional incorrect code for this rule when browser environment is set to true:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env browser*/

window.eval("var a = 0");

Example of additional incorrect code for this rule when node environment is set to true:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env node*/

global.eval("var a = 0");

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = obj[key];

class A {
    foo() {
        // This is a user-defined method.
        this.eval("var a = 0");
    }

    eval() {
    }
}

Options

This rule has an option to allow indirect calls to eval. Indirect calls to eval are less dangerous than direct calls to eval because they cannot dynamically change the scope. Because of this, they also will not negatively impact performance to the degree of direct eval.

{
    "no-eval": ["error", {"allowIndirect": true}] // default is false
}

Example of incorrect code for this rule with the {"allowIndirect": true} option:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

Examples of correct code for this rule with the {"allowIndirect": true} option:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

(0, eval)("var a = 0");

var foo = eval;
foo("var a = 0");

this.eval("var a = 0");

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env browser*/

window.eval("var a = 0");

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env node*/

global.eval("var a = 0");

Known Limitations

• This rule is warning every eval() even if the eval is not global's. This behavior is in order to detect calls of direct eval. Such as:

module.exports = function(eval) {
      // If the value of this `eval` is built-in `eval` function, this is a
      // call of direct `eval`.
      eval("var a = 0");
  };

• This rule cannot catch renaming the global object. Such as:

var foo = window;
  foo.eval("var a = 0");

Further Reading

• Eval is Evil, Part One
• How evil is eval

Related Rules

• [no-implied-eval](no-implied-eval.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

      if (!sanitize || json.isJSON()) return eval('(' + json + ')');

Close

Disallow eval() (no-eval)

JavaScript's eval() function is potentially dangerous and is often misused. Using eval() on untrusted code can open a program up to several different injection attacks. The use of eval() in most contexts can be substituted for a better, alternative approach to a problem.

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at preventing potentially dangerous, unnecessary, and slow code by disallowing the use of the eval() function. As such, it will warn whenever the eval() function is used.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

(0, eval)("var a = 0");

var foo = eval;
foo("var a = 0");

// This `this` is the global object.
this.eval("var a = 0");

Example of additional incorrect code for this rule when browser environment is set to true:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env browser*/

window.eval("var a = 0");

Example of additional incorrect code for this rule when node environment is set to true:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env node*/

global.eval("var a = 0");

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = obj[key];

class A {
    foo() {
        // This is a user-defined method.
        this.eval("var a = 0");
    }

    eval() {
    }
}

Options

This rule has an option to allow indirect calls to eval. Indirect calls to eval are less dangerous than direct calls to eval because they cannot dynamically change the scope. Because of this, they also will not negatively impact performance to the degree of direct eval.

{
    "no-eval": ["error", {"allowIndirect": true}] // default is false
}

Example of incorrect code for this rule with the {"allowIndirect": true} option:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

Examples of correct code for this rule with the {"allowIndirect": true} option:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

(0, eval)("var a = 0");

var foo = eval;
foo("var a = 0");

this.eval("var a = 0");

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env browser*/

window.eval("var a = 0");

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env node*/

global.eval("var a = 0");

Known Limitations

• This rule is warning every eval() even if the eval is not global's. This behavior is in order to detect calls of direct eval. Such as:

module.exports = function(eval) {
      // If the value of this `eval` is built-in `eval` function, this is a
      // call of direct `eval`.
      eval("var a = 0");
  };

• This rule cannot catch renaming the global object. Such as:

var foo = window;
  foo.eval("var a = 0");

Further Reading

• Eval is Evil, Part One
• How evil is eval

Related Rules

• [no-implied-eval](no-implied-eval.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    eval(this.matcher.join('\n'));

Close

Disallow eval() (no-eval)

JavaScript's eval() function is potentially dangerous and is often misused. Using eval() on untrusted code can open a program up to several different injection attacks. The use of eval() in most contexts can be substituted for a better, alternative approach to a problem.

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at preventing potentially dangerous, unnecessary, and slow code by disallowing the use of the eval() function. As such, it will warn whenever the eval() function is used.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

(0, eval)("var a = 0");

var foo = eval;
foo("var a = 0");

// This `this` is the global object.
this.eval("var a = 0");

Example of additional incorrect code for this rule when browser environment is set to true:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env browser*/

window.eval("var a = 0");

Example of additional incorrect code for this rule when node environment is set to true:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env node*/

global.eval("var a = 0");

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = obj[key];

class A {
    foo() {
        // This is a user-defined method.
        this.eval("var a = 0");
    }

    eval() {
    }
}

Options

This rule has an option to allow indirect calls to eval. Indirect calls to eval are less dangerous than direct calls to eval because they cannot dynamically change the scope. Because of this, they also will not negatively impact performance to the degree of direct eval.

{
    "no-eval": ["error", {"allowIndirect": true}] // default is false
}

Example of incorrect code for this rule with the {"allowIndirect": true} option:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

Examples of correct code for this rule with the {"allowIndirect": true} option:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

(0, eval)("var a = 0");

var foo = eval;
foo("var a = 0");

this.eval("var a = 0");

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env browser*/

window.eval("var a = 0");

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env node*/

global.eval("var a = 0");

Known Limitations

• This rule is warning every eval() even if the eval is not global's. This behavior is in order to detect calls of direct eval. Such as:

module.exports = function(eval) {
      // If the value of this `eval` is built-in `eval` function, this is a
      // call of direct `eval`.
      eval("var a = 0");
  };

• This rule cannot catch renaming the global object. Such as:

var foo = window;
  foo.eval("var a = 0");

Further Reading

• Eval is Evil, Part One
• How evil is eval

Related Rules

• [no-implied-eval](no-implied-eval.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    id: function(nodes, root, id, combinator) {
      var targetNode = $(id), h = Selector.handlers;
      if (!targetNode) return [];
      if (!nodes && root == document) return [targetNode];
      if (nodes) {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Element.addMethods = function(methods) {
  var F = Prototype.BrowserFeatures, T = Element.Methods.ByTag;

  if (!methods) {
    Object.extend(Form, Form.Methods);

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

    nth: function(nodes, formula, root, reverse, ofType) {
      if (nodes.length == 0) return [];
      if (formula == 'even') formula = '2n+0';
      if (formula == 'odd')  formula = '2n+1';
      var h = Selector.handlers, results = [], indexed = [], m;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  serializeElements: function(elements, options) {
    if (typeof options != 'object') options = { hash: !!options };
    else if (Object.isUndefined(options.hash)) options.hash = true;
    var key, value, submitted = false, submit = options.submit;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  Element.Methods.getStyle = function(element, style) {
    element = $(element);
    style = (style == 'float' || style == 'cssFloat') ? 'styleFloat' : style.camelize();
    var value = element.style[style];
    if (!value && element.currentStyle) value = element.currentStyle[style];

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

    id: function(nodes, root, id, combinator) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    nth: function(nodes, formula, root, reverse, ofType) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  insert: function(element, insertions) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    tagName: function(nodes, root, tagName, combinator) {
      var uTagName = tagName.toUpperCase();
      var results = [], h = Selector.handlers;
      if (nodes) {
        if (combinator) {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  request: function(url) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  respondToReadyState: function(readyState) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  Element.Methods.getStyle = function(element, style) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    function(proceed, element, style) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

Element.addMethods = function(methods) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  toJSON: function(object) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  viewportOffset: function(forElement) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    return this.template.gsub(this.pattern, function(match) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

var Hash = Class.create(Enumerable, (function() {

  function toQueryPair(key, value) {
    if (Object.isUndefined(value)) return key;
    return key + '=' + encodeURIComponent(String.interpret(value));

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  insert: function(element, insertions) {
    element = $(element);

    if (Object.isString(insertions) || Object.isNumber(insertions) ||
        Object.isElement(insertions) || (insertions && (insertions.toElement || insertions.toHTML)))

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

    index: function(parentNode, reverse, ofType) {
      parentNode._countedByPrototype = Prototype.emptyFunction;
      if (reverse) {
        for (var nodes = parentNode.childNodes, i = nodes.length - 1, j = 1; i >= 0; i--) {
          var node = nodes[i];

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  writeAttribute: function(element, name, value) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  setRequestHeaders: function() {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  Element.Methods.setOpacity = function(element, value) {
    element = $(element);
    element.style.opacity = (value == 1 || value === '') ? '' :
      (value < 0.00001) ? 0 : value;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  match: function(element) {
    this.tokens = [];

    var e = this.expression, ps = Selector.patterns, as = Selector.assertions;
    var le, p, m;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Event.Methods = (function() {
  var isButton;

  if (Prototype.Browser.IE) {
    var buttonMap = { 0: 1, 1: 4, 2: 2 };

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

    function(proceed, element, style) {
      switch (style) {
        case 'left': case 'top': case 'right': case 'bottom':
          if (proceed(element, 'position') === 'static') return null;
        case 'height': case 'width':

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  setStyle: function(element, styles) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    tagName: function(nodes, root, tagName, combinator) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  var extend = Object.extend(function(element) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

      nth: function(fragment, m) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  getStyle: function(element, style) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    index: function(parentNode, reverse, ofType) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  clonePosition: function(element, source) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    pointer: function(event) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  match: function(element) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  _getResponseJSON: function() {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  Element.Methods.setOpacity = function(element, value) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  Element.Methods.setOpacity = function(element, value) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  positionedOffset: function(element) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  readAttribute: function(element, name) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  request: function(form, options) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  prepare: function() {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    var data = elements.inject({ }, function(result, element) {

Close

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  request: function(url) {
    this.url = url;
    this.method = this.options.method;
    var params = Object.clone(this.options.parameters);

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Element.extend = (function() {
  if (Prototype.BrowserFeatures.SpecificElementExtensions)
    return Prototype.K;

  var Methods = { }, ByTag = Element.Methods.ByTag;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  setRequestHeaders: function() {
    var headers = {
      'X-Requested-With': 'XMLHttpRequest',
      'X-Prototype-Version': Prototype.Version,
      'Accept': 'text/javascript, text/html, application/xml, text/xml, */*'

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

if (!document.getElementsByClassName) document.getElementsByClassName = function(instanceMethods){
  function iter(name) {
    return name.blank() ? null : "[contains(concat(' ', @class, ' '), ' " + name + " ')]";
  }

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  setStyle: function(element, styles) {
    element = $(element);
    var elementStyle = element.style, match;
    if (Object.isString(styles)) {
      element.style.cssText += ';' + styles;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  select: function(element, value) {
    if (Object.isUndefined(value))
      return this[element.type == 'select-one' ?
        'selectOne' : 'selectMany'](element);
    else {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  compileMatcher: function() {
    var e = this.expression, ps = Selector.patterns, h = Selector.handlers,
        c = Selector.criteria, le, p, m;

    if (Selector._cache[e]) {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  Array.prototype.concat = function() {
    var array = [];
    for (var i = 0, length = this.length; i < length; i++) array.push(this[i]);
    for (var i = 0, length = arguments.length; i < length; i++) {
      if (Object.isArray(arguments[i])) {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

      'not': function(m) {
        var e = m[6], p = Selector.patterns,
            x = Selector.xpath, le, v;

        var exclusion = [];

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  compileXPathMatcher: function() {
    var e = this.expression, ps = Selector.patterns,
        x = Selector.xpath, le, m;

    if (Selector._cache[e]) {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  respondToReadyState: function(readyState) {
    var state = Ajax.Request.Events[readyState], response = new Ajax.Response(this);

    if (state == 'Complete') {
      try {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  Element.Methods.setOpacity = function(element, value) {
    function stripAlpha(filter){
      return filter.replace(/alpha\([^\)]*\)/gi,'');
    }
    element = $(element);

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  viewportOffset: function(forElement) {
    var valueT = 0, valueL = 0;

    var element = forElement;
    do {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  Element.Methods.cumulativeOffset = function(element) {
    var valueT = 0, valueL = 0;
    do {
      valueT += element.offsetTop  || 0;
      valueL += element.offsetLeft || 0;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

      nth: function(fragment, m) {
        var mm, formula = m[6], predicate;
        if (formula == 'even') formula = '2n+0';
        if (formula == 'odd')  formula = '2n+1';
        if (mm = formula.match(/^(\d+)$/)) // digit only

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  readAttribute: function(element, name) {
    element = $(element);
    if (Prototype.Browser.IE) {
      var t = Element._attributeTranslations.read;
      if (t.values[name]) return t.values[name](element, name);

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  positionedOffset: function(element) {
    var valueT = 0, valueL = 0;
    do {
      valueT += element.offsetTop  || 0;
      valueL += element.offsetLeft || 0;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  Element.Methods.setOpacity = function(element, value) {
    element = $(element);
    element.style.opacity = (value == 1) ? 0.999999 :
      (value === '') ? '' : (value < 0.00001) ? 0 : value;
    return element;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  writeAttribute: function(element, name, value) {
    element = $(element);
    var attributes = { }, t = Element._attributeTranslations.write;

    if (typeof name == 'object') attributes = name;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  Element.Methods.replace = function(element, content) {
    element = $(element);

    if (content && content.toElement) content = content.toElement();
    if (Object.isElement(content)) {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  getStyle: function(element, style) {
    element = $(element);
    style = style == 'float' ? 'cssFloat' : style.camelize();
    var value = element.style[style];
    if (!value || value == 'auto') {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  updateContent: function(responseText) {
    var receiver = this.container[this.success() ? 'success' : 'failure'],
        options = this.options;

    if (!options.evalScripts) responseText = responseText.stripScripts();

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

    child: function(nodes) {
      var h = Selector.handlers;
      for (var i = 0, results = [], node; node = nodes[i]; i++) {
        for (var j = 0, child; child = node.childNodes[j]; j++)
          if (child.nodeType == 1 && child.tagName != '!') results.push(child);

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  request: function(form, options) {
    form = $(form), options = Object.clone(options || { });

    var params = options.parameters, action = form.readAttribute('action') || '';
    if (action.blank()) action = window.location.href;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

    attr: function(nodes, root, attr, value, operator, combinator) {
      if (!nodes) nodes = root.getElementsByTagName("*");
      if (nodes && combinator) nodes = this[combinator](nodes);
      var handler = Selector.operators[operator], results = [];
      for (var i = 0, node; node = nodes[i]; i++) {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  toJSON: function(object) {
    var type = typeof object;
    switch (type) {
      case 'undefined':
      case 'function':

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  Element.Methods.update = function(element, content) {
    element = $(element);

    if (content && content.toElement) content = content.toElement();
    if (Object.isElement(content)) return element.update().insert(content);

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

if (!Array.prototype.lastIndexOf) Array.prototype.lastIndexOf = function(item, i) {
  i = isNaN(i) ? this.length : (i < 0 ? this.length + i : i) + 1;
  var n = this.slice(0, i).reverse().indexOf(item);
  return (n < 0) ? n : i - n - 1;
};

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

    byClassName: function(nodes, root, className) {
      if (!nodes) nodes = Selector.handlers.descendant([root]);
      var needle = ' ' + className + ' ';
      for (var i = 0, results = [], node, nodeClassName; node = nodes[i]; i++) {
        nodeClassName = node.className;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

if (!Array.prototype.indexOf) Array.prototype.indexOf = function(item, i) {
  i || (i = 0);
  var length = this.length;
  if (i < 0) i = length + i;
  for (; i < length; i++)

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  initialize: function(request){
    this.request = request;
    var transport  = this.transport  = request.transport,
        readyState = this.readyState = transport.readyState;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  clonePosition: function(element, source) {
    var options = Object.extend({
      setLeft:    true,
      setTop:     true,
      setWidth:   true,

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

    attrPresence: function(nodes, root, attr, combinator) {
      if (!nodes) nodes = root.getElementsByTagName("*");
      if (nodes && combinator) nodes = this[combinator](nodes);
      var results = [];
      for (var i = 0, node; node = nodes[i]; i++)

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  getInputs: function(form, typeName, name) {
    form = $(form);
    var inputs = form.getElementsByTagName('input');

    if (!typeName && !name) return $A(inputs).map(Element.extend);

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  getOffsetParent: function(element) {
    if (element.offsetParent) return $(element.offsetParent);
    if (element == document.body) return $(element);

    while ((element = element.parentNode) && element != document.body)

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  inspect: function(object) {
    try {
      if (Object.isUndefined(object)) return 'undefined';
      if (object === null) return 'null';
      return object.inspect ? object.inspect() : String(object);

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

    return object != null && typeof object == "object" &&

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    return typeof object == "undefined";

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    return this._methodized = function() {

Close

Disallow Assignment in return Statement (no-return-assign)

One of the interesting, and sometimes confusing, aspects of JavaScript is that assignment can happen at almost any point. Because of this, an errant equals sign can end up causing assignment when the true intent was to do a comparison. This is especially true when using a return statement. For example:

function doSomething() {
    return foo = bar + 2;
}

It is difficult to tell the intent of the return statement here. It's possible that the function is meant to return the result of bar + 2, but then why is it assigning to foo? It's also possible that the intent was to use a comparison operator such as == and that this code is an error.

Because of this ambiguity, it's considered a best practice to not use assignment in return statements.

Rule Details

This rule aims to eliminate assignments from return statements. As such, it will warn whenever an assignment is found as part of return.

Options

The rule takes one option, a string, which must contain one of the following values:

• except-parens (default): Disallow assignments unless they are enclosed in parentheses.
• always: Disallow all assignments.

except-parens

This is the default option. It disallows assignments unless they are enclosed in parentheses.

Examples of incorrect code for the default "except-parens" option:

/*eslint no-return-assign: "error"*/

function doSomething() {
    return foo = bar + 2;
}

function doSomething() {
    return foo += 2;
}

Examples of correct code for the default "except-parens" option:

/*eslint no-return-assign: "error"*/

function doSomething() {
    return foo == bar + 2;
}

function doSomething() {
    return foo === bar + 2;
}

function doSomething() {
    return (foo = bar + 2);
}

always

This option disallows all assignments in return statements. All assignments are treated as problems.

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint no-return-assign: ["error", "always"]*/

function doSomething() {
    return foo = bar + 2;
}

function doSomething() {
    return foo += 2;
}

function doSomething() {
    return (foo = bar + 2);
}

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint no-return-assign: ["error", "always"]*/

function doSomething() {
    return foo == bar + 2;
}

function doSomething() {
    return foo === bar + 2;
}

When Not To Use It

If you want to allow the use of assignment operators in a return statement, then you can safely disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

      if (result == null || value < result)

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    if (state == 'Complete') {

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    if (receiver = $(receiver)) {

Close

disallow assignment operators in conditional statements (no-cond-assign)

In conditional statements, it is very easy to mistype a comparison operator (such as ==) as an assignment operator (such as =). For example:

// Check the user's job title
if (user.jobTitle = "manager") {
    // user.jobTitle is now incorrect
}

There are valid reasons to use assignment operators in conditional statements. However, it can be difficult to tell whether a specific assignment was intentional.

Rule Details

This rule disallows ambiguous assignment operators in test conditions of if, for, while, and do...while statements.

Options

This rule has a string option:

• "except-parens" (default) allows assignments in test conditions only if they are enclosed in parentheses (for example, to allow reassigning a variable in the test of a while or do...while loop)
• "always" disallows all assignments in test conditions

except-parens

Examples of incorrect code for this rule with the default "except-parens" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: "error"*/

// Unintentional assignment
var x;
if (x = 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

// Practical example that is similar to an error
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while (someNode = someNode.parentNode);
}

Examples of correct code for this rule with the default "except-parens" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: "error"*/

// Assignment replaced by comparison
var x;
if (x === 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment in parentheses
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode));
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment and tests for 'null'
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode) !== null);
}

always

Examples of incorrect code for this rule with the "always" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: ["error", "always"]*/

// Unintentional assignment
var x;
if (x = 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

// Practical example that is similar to an error
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while (someNode = someNode.parentNode);
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment in parentheses
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode));
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment and tests for 'null'
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode) !== null);
}

Examples of correct code for this rule with the "always" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: ["error", "always"]*/

// Assignment replaced by comparison
var x;
if (x === 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

Related Rules

• [no-extra-parens](no-extra-parens.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

      tagName = ((position == 'before' || position == 'after')

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

      try { element.offsetParent }

Close

Disallow Unused Expressions (no-unused-expressions)

An unused expression which has no effect on the state of the program indicates a logic error.

For example, n + 1; is not a syntax error, but it might be a typing mistake where a programmer meant an assignment statement n += 1; instead.

Rule Details

This rule aims to eliminate unused expressions which have no effect on the state of the program.

This rule does not apply to function calls or constructor calls with the new operator, because they could have side effects on the state of the program.

var i = 0;
function increment() { i += 1; }
increment(); // return value is unused, but i changed as a side effect

var nThings = 0;
function Thing() { nThings += 1; }
new Thing(); // constructed object is unused, but nThings changed as a side effect

This rule does not apply to directives (which are in the form of literal string expressions such as "use strict"; at the beginning of a script, module, or function).

Sequence expressions (those using a comma, such as a = 1, b = 2) are always considered unused unless their return value is assigned or used in a condition evaluation, or a function call is made with the sequence expression value.

Options

This rule, in its default state, does not require any arguments. If you would like to enable one or more of the following you may pass an object with the options set as follows:

• allowShortCircuit set to true will allow you to use short circuit evaluations in your expressions (Default: false).
• allowTernary set to true will enable you to use ternary operators in your expressions similarly to short circuit evaluations (Default: false).
• allowTaggedTemplates set to true will enable you to use tagged template literals in your expressions (Default: false).

These options allow unused expressions only if all of the code paths either directly change the state (for example, assignment statement) or could have side effects (for example, function call).

Examples of incorrect code for the default { "allowShortCircuit": false, "allowTernary": false } options:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: "error"*/

0

if(0) 0

{0}

f(0), {}

a && b()

a, b()

c = a, b;

a() && function namedFunctionInExpressionContext () {f();}

(function anIncompleteIIFE () {});

injectGlobal`body{ color: red; }`

Note that one or more string expression statements (with or without semi-colons) will only be considered as unused if they are not in the beginning of a script, module, or function (alone and uninterrupted by other statements). Otherwise, they will be treated as part of a "directive prologue", a section potentially usable by JavaScript engines. This includes "strict mode" directives.

"use strict";
"use asm"
"use stricter";
"use babel"
"any other strings like this in the prologue";

Examples of correct code for the default { "allowShortCircuit": false, "allowTernary": false } options:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: "error"*/

{} // In this context, this is a block statement, not an object literal

{myLabel: someVar} // In this context, this is a block statement with a label and expression, not an object literal

function namedFunctionDeclaration () {}

(function aGenuineIIFE () {}());

f()

a = 0

new C

delete a.b

void a

allowShortCircuit

Examples of incorrect code for the { "allowShortCircuit": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowShortCircuit": true }]*/

a || b

Examples of correct code for the { "allowShortCircuit": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowShortCircuit": true }]*/

a && b()
a() || (b = c)

allowTernary

Examples of incorrect code for the { "allowTernary": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowTernary": true }]*/

a ? b : 0
a ? b : c()

Examples of correct code for the { "allowTernary": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowTernary": true }]*/

a ? b() : c()
a ? (b = c) : d()

allowShortCircuit and allowTernary

Examples of correct code for the { "allowShortCircuit": true, "allowTernary": true } options:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowShortCircuit": true, "allowTernary": true }]*/

a ? b() || (c = d) : e()

allowTaggedTemplates

Examples of incorrect code for the { "allowTaggedTemplates": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowTaggedTemplates": true }]*/

`some untagged template string`;

Examples of correct code for the { "allowTaggedTemplates": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowTaggedTemplates": true }]*/

tag`some tagged template string`;

Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

      if(element.tagName.toUpperCase() == 'IMG' && element.width) {

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

        element.nodeType != 1 || element == window) return element;

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

        if (mm = formula.match(/^(\d+)$/)) // digit only

Close

disallow assignment operators in conditional statements (no-cond-assign)

In conditional statements, it is very easy to mistype a comparison operator (such as ==) as an assignment operator (such as =). For example:

// Check the user's job title
if (user.jobTitle = "manager") {
    // user.jobTitle is now incorrect
}

There are valid reasons to use assignment operators in conditional statements. However, it can be difficult to tell whether a specific assignment was intentional.

Rule Details

This rule disallows ambiguous assignment operators in test conditions of if, for, while, and do...while statements.

Options

This rule has a string option:

• "except-parens" (default) allows assignments in test conditions only if they are enclosed in parentheses (for example, to allow reassigning a variable in the test of a while or do...while loop)
• "always" disallows all assignments in test conditions

except-parens

Examples of incorrect code for this rule with the default "except-parens" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: "error"*/

// Unintentional assignment
var x;
if (x = 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

// Practical example that is similar to an error
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while (someNode = someNode.parentNode);
}

Examples of correct code for this rule with the default "except-parens" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: "error"*/

// Assignment replaced by comparison
var x;
if (x === 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment in parentheses
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode));
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment and tests for 'null'
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode) !== null);
}

always

Examples of incorrect code for this rule with the "always" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: ["error", "always"]*/

// Unintentional assignment
var x;
if (x = 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

// Practical example that is similar to an error
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while (someNode = someNode.parentNode);
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment in parentheses
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode));
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment and tests for 'null'
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode) !== null);
}

Examples of correct code for this rule with the "always" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: ["error", "always"]*/

// Assignment replaced by comparison
var x;
if (x === 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

Related Rules

• [no-extra-parens](no-extra-parens.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

          if (node.nodeType == 1 && (!ofType || node._countedByPrototype)) node.nodeIndex = j++;

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

        for (var i = 0, node; node = nodes[i]; i++)

Close

disallow variable redeclaration (no-redeclare)

In JavaScript, it's possible to redeclare the same variable name using var. This can lead to confusion as to where the variable is actually declared and initialized.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating variables that have multiple declarations in the same scope.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-redeclare: "error"*/

var a = 3;
var a = 10;

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-redeclare: "error"*/

var a = 3;
// ...
a = 10;

Options

This rule takes one optional argument, an object with a boolean property "builtinGlobals". It defaults to false. If set to true, this rule also checks redeclaration of built-in globals, such as Object, Array, Number...

builtinGlobals

Examples of incorrect code for the { "builtinGlobals": true } option:

/*eslint no-redeclare: ["error", { "builtinGlobals": true }]*/

var Object = 0;

Examples of incorrect code for the { "builtinGlobals": true } option and the browser environment:

/*eslint no-redeclare: ["error", { "builtinGlobals": true }]*/
/*eslint-env browser*/

var top = 0;

The browser environment has many built-in global variables (for example, top). Some of built-in global variables cannot be redeclared. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

        for (var i = 0, node; node = nodes[i]; i++)

Close

disallow variable redeclaration (no-redeclare)

In JavaScript, it's possible to redeclare the same variable name using var. This can lead to confusion as to where the variable is actually declared and initialized.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating variables that have multiple declarations in the same scope.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-redeclare: "error"*/

var a = 3;
var a = 10;

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-redeclare: "error"*/

var a = 3;
// ...
a = 10;

Options

This rule takes one optional argument, an object with a boolean property "builtinGlobals". It defaults to false. If set to true, this rule also checks redeclaration of built-in globals, such as Object, Array, Number...

builtinGlobals

Examples of incorrect code for the { "builtinGlobals": true } option:

/*eslint no-redeclare: ["error", { "builtinGlobals": true }]*/

var Object = 0;

Examples of incorrect code for the { "builtinGlobals": true } option and the browser environment:

/*eslint no-redeclare: ["error", { "builtinGlobals": true }]*/
/*eslint-env browser*/

var top = 0;

The browser environment has many built-in global variables (for example, top). Some of built-in global variables cannot be redeclared. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

            for (var i = 0, node; node = nodes[i]; i++)

Close

disallow variable redeclaration (no-redeclare)

In JavaScript, it's possible to redeclare the same variable name using var. This can lead to confusion as to where the variable is actually declared and initialized.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating variables that have multiple declarations in the same scope.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-redeclare: "error"*/

var a = 3;
var a = 10;

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-redeclare: "error"*/

var a = 3;
// ...
a = 10;

Options

This rule takes one optional argument, an object with a boolean property "builtinGlobals". It defaults to false. If set to true, this rule also checks redeclaration of built-in globals, such as Object, Array, Number...

builtinGlobals

Examples of incorrect code for the { "builtinGlobals": true } option:

/*eslint no-redeclare: ["error", { "builtinGlobals": true }]*/

var Object = 0;

Examples of incorrect code for the { "builtinGlobals": true } option and the browser environment:

/*eslint no-redeclare: ["error", { "builtinGlobals": true }]*/
/*eslint-env browser*/

var top = 0;

The browser environment has many built-in global variables (for example, top). Some of built-in global variables cannot be redeclared. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

String.prototype.parseQuery = String.prototype.toQueryParams;

Close

Disallow Extending of Native Objects (no-extend-native)

In JavaScript, you can extend any object, including builtin or "native" objects. Sometimes people change the behavior of these native objects in ways that break the assumptions made about them in other parts of the code.

For example here we are overriding a builtin method that will then affect all Objects, even other builtins.

// seems harmless
Object.prototype.extra = 55;

// loop through some userIds
var users = {
    "123": "Stan",
    "456": "David"
};

// not what you'd expect
for (var id in users) {
    console.log(id); // "123", "456", "extra"
}

A common suggestion to avoid this problem would be to wrap the inside of the for loop with users.hasOwnProperty(id). However, if this rule is strictly enforced throughout your codebase you won't need to take that step.

Rule Details

Disallows directly modifying the prototype of builtin objects.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-extend-native: "error"*/

Object.prototype.a = "a";
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, "times", { value: 999 });

Options

This rule accepts an exceptions option, which can be used to specify a list of builtins for which extensions will be allowed.

exceptions

Examples of correct code for the sample { "exceptions": ["Object"] } option:

/*eslint no-extend-native: ["error", { "exceptions": ["Object"] }]*/

Object.prototype.a = "a";

Known Limitations

This rule does not report any of the following less obvious approaches to modify the prototype of builtin objects:

var x = Object;
x.prototype.thing = a;

eval("Array.prototype.forEach = 'muhahaha'");

with(Array) {
    prototype.thing = 'thing';
};

window.Function.prototype.bind = 'tight';

When Not To Use It

You may want to disable this rule when working with polyfills that try to patch older versions of JavaScript with the latest spec, such as those that might Function.prototype.bind or Array.prototype.forEach in a future-friendly way.

Related Rules

• [no-global-assign](no-global-assign.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

      if (before == '\\') return match[2];

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

      if (match == null) return before;

Close

Disallow Null Comparisons (no-eq-null)

Comparing to null without a type-checking operator (== or !=), can have unintended results as the comparison will evaluate to true when comparing to not just a null, but also an undefined value.

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

Rule Details

The no-eq-null rule aims reduce potential bug and unwanted behavior by ensuring that comparisons to null only match null, and not also undefined. As such it will flag comparisons to null when using == and !=.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux != null) {
  baz();
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo === null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux !== null) {
  baz();
}

Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    if (arguments.length == 1) return $(Selector.handlers.previousElementSibling(element));

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    element.style.overflow = element._overflow == 'auto' ? '' : element._overflow;

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    if (element.getStyle('position') == 'relative') return element;

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

        if (Element.getStyle(element, 'position') == 'absolute') break;

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    for (var property in methods) {

Close

Require Guarding for-in (guard-for-in)

Looping over objects with a for in loop will include properties that are inherited through the prototype chain. This behavior can lead to unexpected items in your for loop.

for (key in foo) {
    doSomething(key);
}

Note that simply checking foo.hasOwnProperty(key) is likely to cause an error in some cases; see [no-prototype-builtins](no-prototype-builtins.md).

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at preventing unexpected behavior that could arise from using a for in loop without filtering the results in the loop. As such, it will warn when for in loops do not filter their results with an if statement.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint guard-for-in: "error"*/

for (key in foo) {
    doSomething(key);
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint guard-for-in: "error"*/

for (key in foo) {
    if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(foo, key)) {
        doSomething(key);
    }
    if ({}.hasOwnProperty.call(foo, key)) {
        doSomething(key);
    }
}

Related Rules

• [no-prototype-builtins](no-prototype-builtins.md)

Further Reading

• Exploring JavaScript for-in loops
• The pitfalls of using objects as maps in JavaScript Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    } catch (e) { }

Close

disallow empty block statements (no-empty)

Empty block statements, while not technically errors, usually occur due to refactoring that wasn't completed. They can cause confusion when reading code.

Rule Details

This rule disallows empty block statements. This rule ignores block statements which contain a comment (for example, in an empty catch or finally block of a try statement to indicate that execution should continue regardless of errors).

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-empty: "error"*/

if (foo) {
}

while (foo) {
}

switch(foo) {
}

try {
    doSomething();
} catch(ex) {

} finally {

}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-empty: "error"*/

if (foo) {
    // empty
}

while (foo) {
    /* empty */
}

try {
    doSomething();
} catch (ex) {
    // continue regardless of error
}

try {
    doSomething();
} finally {
    /* continue regardless of error */
}

Options

This rule has an object option for exceptions:

• "allowEmptyCatch": true allows empty catch clauses (that is, which do not contain a comment)

allowEmptyCatch

Examples of additional correct code for this rule with the { "allowEmptyCatch": true } option:

/* eslint no-empty: ["error", { "allowEmptyCatch": true }] */
try {
    doSomething();
} catch (ex) {}

try {
    doSomething();
}
catch (ex) {}
finally {
    /* continue regardless of error */
}

When Not To Use It

If you intentionally use empty block statements then you can disable this rule.

Related Rules

• [no-empty-function](./no-empty-function.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

      if (0 == index || (sorted ? array.last() != value : !array.include(value)))

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  for (var property in source)

Close

Require Guarding for-in (guard-for-in)

Looping over objects with a for in loop will include properties that are inherited through the prototype chain. This behavior can lead to unexpected items in your for loop.

for (key in foo) {
    doSomething(key);
}

Note that simply checking foo.hasOwnProperty(key) is likely to cause an error in some cases; see [no-prototype-builtins](no-prototype-builtins.md).

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at preventing unexpected behavior that could arise from using a for in loop without filtering the results in the loop. As such, it will warn when for in loops do not filter their results with an if statement.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint guard-for-in: "error"*/

for (key in foo) {
    doSomething(key);
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint guard-for-in: "error"*/

for (key in foo) {
    if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(foo, key)) {
        doSomething(key);
    }
    if ({}.hasOwnProperty.call(foo, key)) {
        doSomething(key);
    }
}

Related Rules

• [no-prototype-builtins](no-prototype-builtins.md)

Further Reading

• Exploring JavaScript for-in loops
• The pitfalls of using objects as maps in JavaScript Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

      for (var i in ps) {

Close

Require Guarding for-in (guard-for-in)

Looping over objects with a for in loop will include properties that are inherited through the prototype chain. This behavior can lead to unexpected items in your for loop.

for (key in foo) {
    doSomething(key);
}

Note that simply checking foo.hasOwnProperty(key) is likely to cause an error in some cases; see [no-prototype-builtins](no-prototype-builtins.md).

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at preventing unexpected behavior that could arise from using a for in loop without filtering the results in the loop. As such, it will warn when for in loops do not filter their results with an if statement.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint guard-for-in: "error"*/

for (key in foo) {
    doSomething(key);
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint guard-for-in: "error"*/

for (key in foo) {
    if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(foo, key)) {
        doSomething(key);
    }
    if ({}.hasOwnProperty.call(foo, key)) {
        doSomething(key);
    }
}

Related Rules

• [no-prototype-builtins](no-prototype-builtins.md)

Further Reading

• Exploring JavaScript for-in loops
• The pitfalls of using objects as maps in JavaScript Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    for (var property in object)

Close

Require Guarding for-in (guard-for-in)

Looping over objects with a for in loop will include properties that are inherited through the prototype chain. This behavior can lead to unexpected items in your for loop.

for (key in foo) {
    doSomething(key);
}

Note that simply checking foo.hasOwnProperty(key) is likely to cause an error in some cases; see [no-prototype-builtins](no-prototype-builtins.md).

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at preventing unexpected behavior that could arise from using a for in loop without filtering the results in the loop. As such, it will warn when for in loops do not filter their results with an if statement.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint guard-for-in: "error"*/

for (key in foo) {
    doSomething(key);
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint guard-for-in: "error"*/

for (key in foo) {
    if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(foo, key)) {
        doSomething(key);
    }
    if ({}.hasOwnProperty.call(foo, key)) {
        doSomething(key);
    }
}

Related Rules

• [no-prototype-builtins](no-prototype-builtins.md)

Further Reading

• Exploring JavaScript for-in loops
• The pitfalls of using objects as maps in JavaScript Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  Array.prototype.concat = function() {

Close

Disallow Extending of Native Objects (no-extend-native)

In JavaScript, you can extend any object, including builtin or "native" objects. Sometimes people change the behavior of these native objects in ways that break the assumptions made about them in other parts of the code.

For example here we are overriding a builtin method that will then affect all Objects, even other builtins.

// seems harmless
Object.prototype.extra = 55;

// loop through some userIds
var users = {
    "123": "Stan",
    "456": "David"
};

// not what you'd expect
for (var id in users) {
    console.log(id); // "123", "456", "extra"
}

A common suggestion to avoid this problem would be to wrap the inside of the for loop with users.hasOwnProperty(id). However, if this rule is strictly enforced throughout your codebase you won't need to take that step.

Rule Details

Disallows directly modifying the prototype of builtin objects.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-extend-native: "error"*/

Object.prototype.a = "a";
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, "times", { value: 999 });

Options

This rule accepts an exceptions option, which can be used to specify a list of builtins for which extensions will be allowed.

exceptions

Examples of correct code for the sample { "exceptions": ["Object"] } option:

/*eslint no-extend-native: ["error", { "exceptions": ["Object"] }]*/

Object.prototype.a = "a";

Known Limitations

This rule does not report any of the following less obvious approaches to modify the prototype of builtin objects:

var x = Object;
x.prototype.thing = a;

eval("Array.prototype.forEach = 'muhahaha'");

with(Array) {
    prototype.thing = 'thing';
};

window.Function.prototype.bind = 'tight';

When Not To Use It

You may want to disable this rule when working with polyfills that try to patch older versions of JavaScript with the latest spec, such as those that might Function.prototype.bind or Array.prototype.forEach in a future-friendly way.

Related Rules

• [no-global-assign](no-global-assign.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

        if (m = e.match(p)) {

Close

disallow assignment operators in conditional statements (no-cond-assign)

In conditional statements, it is very easy to mistype a comparison operator (such as ==) as an assignment operator (such as =). For example:

// Check the user's job title
if (user.jobTitle = "manager") {
    // user.jobTitle is now incorrect
}

There are valid reasons to use assignment operators in conditional statements. However, it can be difficult to tell whether a specific assignment was intentional.

Rule Details

This rule disallows ambiguous assignment operators in test conditions of if, for, while, and do...while statements.

Options

This rule has a string option:

• "except-parens" (default) allows assignments in test conditions only if they are enclosed in parentheses (for example, to allow reassigning a variable in the test of a while or do...while loop)
• "always" disallows all assignments in test conditions

except-parens

Examples of incorrect code for this rule with the default "except-parens" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: "error"*/

// Unintentional assignment
var x;
if (x = 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

// Practical example that is similar to an error
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while (someNode = someNode.parentNode);
}

Examples of correct code for this rule with the default "except-parens" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: "error"*/

// Assignment replaced by comparison
var x;
if (x === 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment in parentheses
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode));
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment and tests for 'null'
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode) !== null);
}

always

Examples of incorrect code for this rule with the "always" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: ["error", "always"]*/

// Unintentional assignment
var x;
if (x = 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

// Practical example that is similar to an error
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while (someNode = someNode.parentNode);
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment in parentheses
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode));
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment and tests for 'null'
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode) !== null);
}

Examples of correct code for this rule with the "always" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: ["error", "always"]*/

// Assignment replaced by comparison
var x;
if (x === 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

Related Rules

• [no-extra-parens](no-extra-parens.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

    return value == null ? '' : String(value);

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

        if (m = e.match(ps[i])) {

Close

disallow assignment operators in conditional statements (no-cond-assign)

In conditional statements, it is very easy to mistype a comparison operator (such as ==) as an assignment operator (such as =). For example:

// Check the user's job title
if (user.jobTitle = "manager") {
    // user.jobTitle is now incorrect
}

There are valid reasons to use assignment operators in conditional statements. However, it can be difficult to tell whether a specific assignment was intentional.

Rule Details

This rule disallows ambiguous assignment operators in test conditions of if, for, while, and do...while statements.

Options

This rule has a string option:

• "except-parens" (default) allows assignments in test conditions only if they are enclosed in parentheses (for example, to allow reassigning a variable in the test of a while or do...while loop)
• "always" disallows all assignments in test conditions

except-parens

Examples of incorrect code for this rule with the default "except-parens" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: "error"*/

// Unintentional assignment
var x;
if (x = 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

// Practical example that is similar to an error
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while (someNode = someNode.parentNode);
}

Examples of correct code for this rule with the default "except-parens" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: "error"*/

// Assignment replaced by comparison
var x;
if (x === 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment in parentheses
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode));
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment and tests for 'null'
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode) !== null);
}

always

Examples of incorrect code for this rule with the "always" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: ["error", "always"]*/

// Unintentional assignment
var x;
if (x = 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

// Practical example that is similar to an error
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while (someNode = someNode.parentNode);
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment in parentheses
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode));
}

// Practical example that wraps the assignment and tests for 'null'
function setHeight(someNode) {
    "use strict";
    do {
        someNode.height = "100px";
    } while ((someNode = someNode.parentNode) !== null);
}

Examples of correct code for this rule with the "always" option:

/*eslint no-cond-assign: ["error", "always"]*/

// Assignment replaced by comparison
var x;
if (x === 0) {
    var b = 1;
}

Related Rules

• [no-extra-parens](no-extra-parens.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

        result += source, source = '';

Close

Disallow Unused Expressions (no-unused-expressions)

An unused expression which has no effect on the state of the program indicates a logic error.

For example, n + 1; is not a syntax error, but it might be a typing mistake where a programmer meant an assignment statement n += 1; instead.

Rule Details

This rule aims to eliminate unused expressions which have no effect on the state of the program.

This rule does not apply to function calls or constructor calls with the new operator, because they could have side effects on the state of the program.

var i = 0;
function increment() { i += 1; }
increment(); // return value is unused, but i changed as a side effect

var nThings = 0;
function Thing() { nThings += 1; }
new Thing(); // constructed object is unused, but nThings changed as a side effect

This rule does not apply to directives (which are in the form of literal string expressions such as "use strict"; at the beginning of a script, module, or function).

Sequence expressions (those using a comma, such as a = 1, b = 2) are always considered unused unless their return value is assigned or used in a condition evaluation, or a function call is made with the sequence expression value.

Options

This rule, in its default state, does not require any arguments. If you would like to enable one or more of the following you may pass an object with the options set as follows:

• allowShortCircuit set to true will allow you to use short circuit evaluations in your expressions (Default: false).
• allowTernary set to true will enable you to use ternary operators in your expressions similarly to short circuit evaluations (Default: false).
• allowTaggedTemplates set to true will enable you to use tagged template literals in your expressions (Default: false).

These options allow unused expressions only if all of the code paths either directly change the state (for example, assignment statement) or could have side effects (for example, function call).

Examples of incorrect code for the default { "allowShortCircuit": false, "allowTernary": false } options:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: "error"*/

0

if(0) 0

{0}

f(0), {}

a && b()

a, b()

c = a, b;

a() && function namedFunctionInExpressionContext () {f();}

(function anIncompleteIIFE () {});

injectGlobal`body{ color: red; }`

Note that one or more string expression statements (with or without semi-colons) will only be considered as unused if they are not in the beginning of a script, module, or function (alone and uninterrupted by other statements). Otherwise, they will be treated as part of a "directive prologue", a section potentially usable by JavaScript engines. This includes "strict mode" directives.

"use strict";
"use asm"
"use stricter";
"use babel"
"any other strings like this in the prologue";

Examples of correct code for the default { "allowShortCircuit": false, "allowTernary": false } options:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: "error"*/

{} // In this context, this is a block statement, not an object literal

{myLabel: someVar} // In this context, this is a block statement with a label and expression, not an object literal

function namedFunctionDeclaration () {}

(function aGenuineIIFE () {}());

f()

a = 0

new C

delete a.b

void a

allowShortCircuit

Examples of incorrect code for the { "allowShortCircuit": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowShortCircuit": true }]*/

a || b

Examples of correct code for the { "allowShortCircuit": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowShortCircuit": true }]*/

a && b()
a() || (b = c)

allowTernary

Examples of incorrect code for the { "allowTernary": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowTernary": true }]*/

a ? b : 0
a ? b : c()

Examples of correct code for the { "allowTernary": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowTernary": true }]*/

a ? b() : c()
a ? (b = c) : d()

allowShortCircuit and allowTernary

Examples of correct code for the { "allowShortCircuit": true, "allowTernary": true } options:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowShortCircuit": true, "allowTernary": true }]*/

a ? b() || (c = d) : e()

allowTaggedTemplates

Examples of incorrect code for the { "allowTaggedTemplates": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowTaggedTemplates": true }]*/

`some untagged template string`;

Examples of correct code for the { "allowTaggedTemplates": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowTaggedTemplates": true }]*/

tag`some tagged template string`;

Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

        if (values && typeof values == 'object') {

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/