Additional codelyzer rules

[mgechev]

• feature request

In the latest release of codelyzer@3.1.0, there are a few new rules:

• - angular-whitespace: [true, 'check-interpolation', 'check-pipe'] - Checks if there's whitespace around an expression surrounded by interpolation characters, and after a pipe symbol.
• - banana-in-box: true - Checks for proper banana in a box syntax - [(ngModel)] instead of ([ngModel]).
• - templates-no-negated-async: true - Enforces (foo | async) === false, rather than !(foo | async), because of the initial falsy value emitted.
• - use-view-encapsulation: true - Enforces enabled view encapsulation.

I'm opening this issue in order to discuss which rules align with the vision of the CLI. After that I'll open a PR updating the configuration.

I'd vote for angular-whitespace, banana-in-box and templates-no-negated-async. Although use-view-encapsulation is very useful, it feels restrictive, however, I'd use it in personal projects.

[intellix]

Was just testing this release and it seems the negated rule is incorrectly named here and in the release notes. Isn't it actually: templates-no-negated-async?

https://github.com/mgechev/codelyzer/blob/master/docs/rules/templates-no-negated-async/index.html#L2

[mgechev]

@intellix correct.

[filipesilva]

SGTM. I know a lot of projects aren't doing use-view-encapsulation, so I think it would be restrictive as well.

[sendilkumarn]

Hello, I would like to give this issue a shot.

[mgechev]

@sendilkumarn we first need to decide which rules to introduce and after that go with the actual PR.

[hansl]

angular-whitespace and banana-in-box seem like no-brainers for me.

templates-no-negated-async is probably okay.

use-view-encapsulation I'm not okay with, since a lot of people don't do view encapsulation (e.g. Angular Material).

[Jefiozie]

Is this still a relevant issue? If so, I would like to have a look but I need some extra information on what the next steps are.

Thanks.