require or disallow semicolons instead of ASI (semi)

JavaScript is unique amongst the C-like languages in that it doesn't require semicolons at the end of each statement. In many cases, the JavaScript engine can determine that a semicolon should be in a certain spot and will automatically add it. This feature is known as automatic semicolon insertion (ASI) and is considered one of the more controversial features of JavaScript. For example, the following lines are both valid:

var name = "ESLint"
var website = "eslint.org";

On the first line, the JavaScript engine will automatically insert a semicolon, so this is not considered a syntax error. The JavaScript engine still knows how to interpret the line and knows that the line end indicates the end of the statement.

In the debate over ASI, there are generally two schools of thought. The first is that we should treat ASI as if it didn't exist and always include semicolons manually. The rationale is that it's easier to always include semicolons than to try to remember when they are or are not required, and thus decreases the possibility of introducing an error.

However, the ASI mechanism can sometimes be tricky to people who are using semicolons. For example, consider this code:

return
{
    name: "ESLint"
};

This may look like a return statement that returns an object literal, however, the JavaScript engine will interpret this code as:

return;
{
    name: "ESLint";
}

Effectively, a semicolon is inserted after the return statement, causing the code below it (a labeled literal inside a block) to be unreachable. This rule and the [no-unreachable](no-unreachable.md) rule will protect your code from such cases.

On the other side of the argument are those who says that since semicolons are inserted automatically, they are optional and do not need to be inserted manually. However, the ASI mechanism can also be tricky to people who don't use semicolons. For example, consider this code:

var globalCounter = { }
 
(function () {
    var n = 0
    globalCounter.increment = function () {
        return ++n
    }
})()

In this example, a semicolon will not be inserted after the first line, causing a run-time error (because an empty object is called as if it's a function). The [no-unexpected-multiline](no-unexpected-multiline.md) rule can protect your code from such cases.

Although ASI allows for more freedom over your coding style, it can also make your code behave in an unexpected way, whether you use semicolons or not. Therefore, it is best to know when ASI takes place and when it does not, and have ESLint protect your code from these potentially unexpected cases. In short, as once described by Isaac Schlueter, a \n character always ends a statement (just like a semicolon) unless one of the following is true:

1. The statement has an unclosed paren, array literal, or object literal or ends in some other way that is not a valid way to end a statement. (For instance, ending with . or ,.)
2. The line is -- or ++ (in which case it will decrement/increment the next token.)
3. It is a for(), while(), do, if(), or else, and there is no {
4. The next line starts with [, (, +, *, /, -, ,, ., or some other binary operator that can only be found between two tokens in a single expression.

Rule Details

This rule enforces consistent use of semicolons.

Options

This rule has two options, a string option and an object option.

String option:

• "always" (default) requires semicolons at the end of statements
• "never" disallows semicolons as the end of statements (except to disambiguate statements beginning with [, (, /, +, or -)

Object option:

• "omitLastInOneLineBlock": true ignores the last semicolon in a block in which its braces (and therefore the content of the block) are in the same line

always

Examples of incorrect code for this rule with the default "always" option:

/*eslint semi: ["error", "always"]*/
 
var name = "ESLint"
 
object.method = function() {
    // ...
}

Examples of correct code for this rule with the default "always" option:

/*eslint semi: "error"*/
 
var name = "ESLint";
 
object.method = function() {
    // ...
};

never

Examples of incorrect code for this rule with the "never" option:

/*eslint semi: ["error", "never"]*/
 
var name = "ESLint";
 
object.method = function() {
    // ...
};

Examples of correct code for this rule with the "never" option:

/*eslint semi: ["error", "never"]*/
 
var name = "ESLint"
 
object.method = function() {
    // ...
}
 
var name = "ESLint"
 
;(function() {
    // ...
})()

omitLastInOneLineBlock

Examples of additional correct code for this rule with the "always", { "omitLastInOneLineBlock": true } options:

/*eslint semi: ["error", "always", { "omitLastInOneLineBlock": true}] */
 
if (foo) { bar() }
 
if (foo) { bar(); baz() }

When Not To Use It

If you do not want to enforce semicolon usage (or omission) in any particular way, then you can turn this rule off.

Further Reading

• An Open Letter to JavaScript Leaders Regarding Semicolons
• JavaScript Semicolon Insertion

Related Rules

• [no-extra-semi](no-extra-semi.md)
• [no-unexpected-multiline](no-unexpected-multiline.md)
• [semi-spacing](semi-spacing.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

Disallow Undeclared Variables (no-undef)

This rule can help you locate potential ReferenceErrors resulting from misspellings of variable and parameter names, or accidental implicit globals (for example, from forgetting the var keyword in a for loop initializer).

Rule Details

Any reference to an undeclared variable causes a warning, unless the variable is explicitly mentioned in a /*global ...*/ comment.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-undef: "error"*/
 
var a = someFunction();
b = 10;

Examples of correct code for this rule with global declaration:

/*global someFunction b:true*/
/*eslint no-undef: "error"*/
 
var a = someFunction();
b = 10;

The b:true syntax in /*global */ indicates that assignment to b is correct.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule with global declaration:

/*global b*/
/*eslint no-undef: "error"*/
 
b = 10;

By default, variables declared in /*global */ are read-only, therefore assignment is incorrect.

Options

• typeof set to true will warn for variables used inside typeof check (Default false).

typeof

Examples of correct code for the default { "typeof": false } option:

/*eslint no-undef: "error"*/
 
if (typeof UndefinedIdentifier === "undefined") {
    // do something ...
}

You can use this option if you want to prevent typeof check on a variable which has not been declared.

Examples of incorrect code for the { "typeof": true } option:

/*eslint no-undef: ["error", { "typeof": true }] */
 
if(typeof a === "string"){}

Examples of correct code for the { "typeof": true } option with global declaration:

/*global a*/
/*eslint no-undef: ["error", { "typeof": true }] */
 
if(typeof a === "string"){}

Environments

For convenience, ESLint provides shortcuts that pre-define global variables exposed by popular libraries and runtime environments. This rule supports these environments, as listed in Specifying Environments. A few examples are given below.

browser

Examples of correct code for this rule with browser environment:

/*eslint no-undef: "error"*/
/*eslint-env browser*/
 
setTimeout(function() {
    alert("Hello");
});

node

Examples of correct code for this rule with node environment:

/*eslint no-undef: "error"*/
/*eslint-env node*/
 
var fs = require("fs");
module.exports = function() {
    console.log(fs);
};

When Not To Use It

If explicit declaration of global variables is not to your taste.

Compatibility

This rule provides compatibility with treatment of global variables in JSHint and JSLint. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-empty-source

Disallow empty sources.

···\n\t
/**     ↑
 *  This empty source */

A source containing only whitespace is considered empty.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.

no-descending-specificity

Disallow selectors of lower specificity from coming after overriding selectors of higher specificity.

#container a { top: 10px; } a { top: 0; }
/** ↑                           ↑
 * The order of these selectors represents descending specificity */

Source order is important in CSS, and when two selectors have the same specificity, the one that occurs last will take priority. However, the situation is different when one of the selectors has a higher specificity. In that case, source order does not matter: the selector with higher specificity will win out even if it comes first.

The clashes of these two mechanisms for prioritization, source order and specificity, can cause some confusion when reading stylesheets. If a selector with higher specificity comes before the selector it overrides, we have to think harder to understand it, because it violates the source order expectation. Stylesheets are most legible when overriding selectors always come after the selectors they override. That way both mechanisms, source order and specificity, work together nicely.

This rule enforces that practice as best it can, reporting fewer errors than it should. It cannot catch every actual overriding selector, but it can catch certain common mistakes.

How it works

This rule looks at the last compound selector in every full selector, and then compares it with other selectors in the stylesheet that end in the same way.

So .foo .bar (whose last compound selector is .bar) will be compared to .bar and #baz .bar, but not to #baz .foo or .bar .foo.

And a > li#wag.pit (whose last compound selector is li#wag.pit) will be compared to div li#wag.pit and a > b > li + li#wag.pit, but not to li or li #wag, etc.

Selectors targeting pseudo-elements are not considered comparable to similar selectors without the pseudo-element, because they target other elements on the rendered page. For example, a::before {} will not be compared to a:hover {}, because a::before targets a pseudo-element whereas a:hover targets the actual <a>.

This rule only compares rules that are within the same media context. So a {} @media print { #baz a {} } is fine.

This rule resolves nested selectors before calculating the specificity of the selectors.

DOM Limitations

The linter can only check the CSS to check for specificity order. It does not have access to the HTML or DOM in order to interpret the use of the CSS.

This can lead to valid linting errors appearing to be invalid at first glance.

For example the following will cause an error:

.component1 a {}
.component1 a:hover {}
.component2 a {}

This is a correct error because the a:hover on line 2 has a higher specificity than the a on line 3.

This may lead to confusion because "the two selectors will never match the same a in the DOM". However, since the linter does not have access to the DOM it can not evaluate this, and therefore correctly reports the error about descending specificity.

It may be possible to restructure your CSS to remove the error, otherwise it is recommended that you disable the rule for that line and leave a comment saying why the error should be ignored. Note that disabling the rule will cause additional valid errors from being reported.