U - Write a linter ingredient handler for class and namespace members

[wbamberg]

The linter should validate the following ingredients:

• data.class_properties
• data.static_methods
• data.static_properties
• data.instance_methods
• data.instance_properties

I think it should be practical to do these all together, since they are very similar.

Acceptance criteria

The linter checks that 'javascript-class' and 'javascript-namespace' pages contain the correct structures for these ingredients, according to the specification agreed in mdn/sprints#3075.

[wbamberg]

I've been thinking a bit about this today and it raises a question. So far the linter only lints mandatory ingredients, so the ingredient must (1) exist and (2) be well-formed to pass, and there isn't really a separation between these questions.

But for optional ingredients: they don't have to exist, but if they do, they must be well-formed. So the linter has to ask, first, does this page try to include static methods (say) or an interactive example? If it doesn't, move on, but if it does, check it's valid.

A question here is: is it likely that a given ingredient will be mandatory in one recipe but optional in another? If the answer is no (which I think it is) we could push this problem into the ingredient handlers. So, say, the data.static_methods handler could have some heuristic to tell it whether this page seems to be trying to include this ingredient (e.g. does it contain the "Static methods" H2). If it doesn't, move on, otherwise validate (check the contents of the H2).

Then requireRecipeIngredientsPlugin could pass both mandatory and optional ingredients into the handlers.

It might still be worth logging missing optional ingredients, to help us catch false negatives.

Thoughts @ddbeck , @Elchi3 ?

[Elchi3]

A question here is: is it likely that a given ingredient will be mandatory in one recipe but optional in another? If the answer is no (which I think it is) we could push this problem into the ingredient handlers.

I also believe the answer is no. It looks like we have prose.description? and prose.description right now, but I think this is a bug. It should probably be optional everywhere.

So, say, the data.static_methods handler could have some heuristic to tell it whether this page seems to be trying to include this ingredient (e.g. does it contain the "Static methods" H2). If it doesn't, move on, otherwise validate (check the contents of the H2).

I think this makes sense.

[ddbeck]

Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me. If we wanted to support optional and required ingredients with the same handler, we could have the plugin pass an argument to the handler.