feat: Flat config extends

[nzakas]

Summary

This RFC proposes adding an extends key to flat config in order to make it easier to mix and match other configs.

Related Issues

eslint/eslint#19116

[michaelfaith]

Wouldn't using this rewrite mechanism then disallow people to use the rules directly from plugin config objects? Today, it's not uncommon to just spread a plugin's config's rules into a config. In this model, if they did that, the rules wouldn't have the token replaced, right? If that's the case, it seems like taking that usage pattern away would be a big side effect.

[nzakas]

The intent isn't to take that usage pattern away, but rather to have another option.

Also, people are accessing rules directly right now because there isn't another way to easily extend configs. I'm not sure how necessary that pattern is in this proposal.

[michaelfaith]

I think everything up until extending named configs is a solid enhancement and would address the pain points you highlight. The named configs piece, though, feels a bit like a step on the road to rc-configs part 2. There's a lot of "magic" baked into that, and it shifts more away from the pure JavaScript spirit that the Flat config was based on. It also doesn't seem to move the needle that much more than passing the configs into extends as regular objects / arrays.

I do really like the fact that you can pass objects or arrays into extends and users don't need to know the underlying implementation anymore.

[bradzacher]

I don't think that files should be combined -- if I write

{
  files: ["**/*.ts"],
  extends: [someConfig],
}

My expectation would definitely be that I'm overriding the files, eg:

{
  ...someConfig,
  files: ["**/*.ts"],
}

Merging just seems odd, IMO.

[bradzacher]

Worth noting that overriding is the behaviour we went with for typescript-eslint's extends property and so far we haven't had anyone report issues asking for a merge instead (it has been live for ~9 months now)

[aladdin-add]

how to merge:

{ files: ["src/**/*"], extends: [{files: ["**/*.js"]}], }

• option A: files: ["src/**/*"]
• option B: files: ["**/*.js"]
• option C: files: ["src/**/*", "**/*.js"]

IMHO, all these are inappropriate. most likely it's expected: files: ["src/**/*.js"]

[bradzacher]

IMO Option A is the correct result. It's the least magical and most straightforward answer, IMO.

Option C is what this RFC currently proposes.

[mdjermanovic]

I think a typical use case for shareable configs specifying files is to provide different configs for different file extensions, while a typical use case for end-user configs specifying files along with extends would be to restrict the sharable config to certain directories only, so what would make the most sense, I think, is resulting config that matches the intersection of files, i.e., files that match both user-specified files and sharable config's files. In @aladdin-add's example, that would be files that match src/**/* AND **/*.js, which is indeed files: ["src/**/*.js"] (though I'm not sure if we would be able to implement this kind of calculations, but rather introduce another mechanism for specifying intersections in the resulting config).

[mdjermanovic]

Intersection is also how .eslintrc's extends works:

https://stackblitz.com/edit/stackblitz-starters-e4kgkq?file=.eslintrc.json,shareable-config.json

[bradzacher]

My 2c as a user of eslint is that:

1. I want the least surprising behaviour, and
2. I want to be able to override that behaviour

If you do something magic internally like intersecting the globs to create new globs then:

• that violates (1) because I wouldn't have expected such magic -- similar magic isn't applied elsewhere in flat configs AFAIK - it's all pretty "non-magical" in its behaviour.
• that violates (2) because I cannot specify an override manually and I would have to opt-out of extends to override the behaviour.

If you merge the files arrays together then:

• for me at least that violates (1) because I expect that that my array overrides the config array
  • I expect this works same as how my rule config array rule: ["error", "option2"] overrides the config's rule config array rule: ["warn", "option1"]
• that violates (2) because I cannot specify an override manually and I would have to opt-out of extends to override the behaviour.

---

What I would reiterate is that typescript-eslint has used the override behaviour for the last 9 months and nobody has complained yet. Which is decent signal, IMO, that people expect overrides.

---

Note that the intersection or array merge behaviours would be trivial to implement on the user side as an opt-in. For example one might consider a util like intersect(...globs: Array<string | FlatConfig | Array<FlatConfig>>): string[] which would let me do some magic glob merging. Eg

{
  files: intersect("src/**/*", plugin.recommended),
  extends: [plugin.recommended],
}

[aaronadamsCA]

I was surprised by typescript-eslint overriding extended files patterns. It was not what I wanted or expected.

My 2 cents, reiterating my comment here: eslint/eslint#19116 (comment)

If an extended config specifies files, and I also specify files, I expect both patterns to apply.

It's easy enough to understand: the extended config filters the list of input files, then my config filters it again. This seems useful.

It's easy enough to implement: instead of glob merging, just use an array-of-arrays format that requires input files to match any pattern in every array.

It's also easy enough to provide an escape hatch like files: () => ["src/**/*"] when you don't want the merging behaviour.

[nzakas]

We do actually have an intersection syntax already supported in flat config (see eslint/eslint#18966), which we were planning on removing in v10 because we weren't using it. We can certainly leverage that for this proposal as I find the arguments of @mdjermanovic and @aaronadamsCA compelling.

@bradzacher I did take a look at what you were doing with extends and I don't believe that's the correct behavior.

[bradzacher]

ESLint internally calls .flat() on the array

Is the plan just flat() or flat(depth)?
It might be worth doing flat(Infinity)

[nzakas]

Good call. 👍

[bradzacher]

I'd just like to reiterate my comment from the original issue in that I strongly believe that supporting this is a bad idea.

[nzakas]

Noted.

[voxpelli]

I think supporting nested arrays is good, as currently most recommended configs are non-arrays and if they would have to become arrays then that would become a breaking change unless it can be consumed in the same way as a non-array

[bradzacher]

should this be moved to a separate RFC?
seems like it's largely unrelated to adding extends.

[nzakas]

No. We like to keep related ideas in the same proposal because it makes it easier to evaluate the whole picture. Part of why we ended up in the mess we had with eslintrc was each proposal was being considered separately rather than seeing how it fit into the whole.

If consensus is that people don't like this, we can always remove it later.

[voxpelli]

I agree with @bradzacher, this should be two different RFC:s

[bradzacher]

It's worth referencing the implementation that typescript-eslint already has that is used in the ecosystem (first released in February 2024)

https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/blob/main/packages/typescript-eslint/src/config-helper.ts

[voxpelli]

The docs for that function: https://typescript-eslint.io/packages/typescript-eslint#flat-config-extends

Not really functionally equivalent in all parts?

[voxpelli]

I would discourage this.

The fact that exported configs needs to reference the very plugin object that they are a property of (configs in js.configs needs to reference js in their plugins.js) makes creation of them quite convoluted and is something that should be moved away from rather than encouraged.

Since all plugin definitions that share the same name needs to be === to each other that means that the plugin configs needs to reference the very plugin object that exposes the recommended configs.

This has led to bugs like: https://github.com/eslint/eslint/blob/0583c87c720afe0b9aef5367b1a0a77923eefe9d/lib/config/flat-config-schema.js#L373-L375

And required workarounds like: neostandard/neostandard@26b472b

Right now plugins typically do:

const base = {
    meta: {
        name: pkg.name,
        version: pkg.version,
    },
    rules: {
        "callback-return": require("./rules/callback-return"),
   },
};
 
base.configs = {
  "flat/recommended": { plugins: { n: base }, ...recommendedConfig.flat },
};

module.exports = base;

I would prefer if one would do eg:

const plugin = {
    meta: {
        name: pkg.name,
        version: pkg.version,
    },
    rules: {
        "callback-return": require("./rules/callback-return"),
   },
};
 
const configs = {
  "flat/recommended": { plugins: { n: plugin }, ...recommendedConfig.flat },
};

module.exports = { plugin, configs };

[nzakas]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. This proposal would solve the problem you're highlighting here.

[voxpelli]

@nzakas This proposal contains many proposals, one of which aims to solve this by adding magic that modifies the config. That part of the proposal feels like a suggestion that should be made separately as a follow up to this RFC and is needlessly complicated compared to what I highlight / suggest here.

[voxpelli]

Or one could define it as:

const plugin = {
  // ...
};

const configs = {
        recommended: (pluginAlias = 'js') => {
            plugins: { pluginAlias: plugin },
            rules: {
                `${pluginAlias}/no-duplicate-keys`: "error",
            },
        },
};

module.exports = { plugin, configs };

And use it like:

js.configs.recommended('foo');

Simpler and less magic. No need for ESLint to modify the config, the config would modify itself.

One could even have "j/recommended" result in js.configs.recommended('j'); if one strongly wants to support the "j/recommended" shortcut.

---

Generating configs from a function is a pattern that we eg. use in neostandard:

import neostandard from 'neostandard'

export default neostandard({
  noStyle: true,
  ts: true,
});

[nzakas]

Exporting a function then muddies the water of a config is, forcing people to understand not just whether something is an object or array (a problem we trying to remedy with this proposal), but then they'd also have to know whether something was a function.

As stated in this RFC Motivation section, right now, end users needing to configure things differently based on how plugins export config is a big problem and source of confusion. I'm trying to remove the necessity for end users to think about this.

[voxpelli]

I would split the two goals of this RFC into one RFC each. The case for extends is more proven and clear to me than the need for and even more so the solution for discoverability of shared configs.

[voxpelli]

The docs for that function: https://typescript-eslint.io/packages/typescript-eslint#flat-config-extends

Not really functionally equivalent in all parts?

[voxpelli]

Since FlatConfigArray is not something that's exported (see discussion in eslint/eslint#18619) this would not be something that the config-inspector can make use of but something that it would need to re-implement, which would be a lot of extra work and a risk of divergence / differences in implementation.

I would strongly suggest that the non-exporting of FlatConfigArray is reconsidered if all this is added there.

An option could be that the ConfigExtender is added as part of @eslint/config-array instead and that ConfigArray rather than FlatConfigArray is updated to use it in normalize(), and that it behaves like nested arrays: Its something one opts into / out of for a config array

Thoughts @antfu?

[antfu]

Yeah, the fact I love the flat config format also makes config-inspector possible is that it's very transparent, where you can import the config file as a plain js module without eslint to get all the information. What I understand is that we now want to move to a bit of the middle ground to have ESLint interop the config a bit to provide better DX, which I would be love to see.

In that regard, in order to keep the inspector working (where we still present the final resolved flat configs to users), I agree with @voxpelli that we do need ESLint to expose those API to handle the config resolutions to the final config array.

[nzakas]

That's good feedback re: FlatConfigArray and a good argument for adding this functionality into @eslint/config-array directly. I'll take a look at what this would look like and update the RFC once I've figured it out.

I'm still hesitant to export FlatConfigArray itself because we are still making changes and I don't want to be tied to that API by exposing it.

[voxpelli]

As I mentioned in another comment, this makes it harder for eg. config-inspector to mimic the same logic since FlatConfigArrayis currently only available internally in ESLint (see discussion in eslint/eslint#18619)

[mdjermanovic]

What would be files in the final config when files in the user config and extended config have multiple items? For example:

{
    files: ["src/**", "lib/**"],
    extends: [{ files: ["**/*.js", "**/*.mjs"] }]
}

[nzakas]

In order to get the intersection correct, it would look like this:

{
    files: [["src/**", "**/*.js"], ["lib/**", "**/*.js"], ["src/**", "**/*.mjs"], ["lib/**", "**/*.mjs"]]
}

[antfu]

Should we also support Promise in the configs array? Currently, ESLint support returning a single promise as default exports. If any of the shared config returns a promise, users need to either use TLA or wrapper everything with Promise.all, like:

export default Promise.all([
    js.configs.recommended,
    ...tailwind.configs["flat/recommended"],
    ...reactPlugin.configs.flat.recommended,
    somePromise,
]).flat()

which:

1. It's raise the bar to know how for users
2. Verbose to write
3. Need to undo the flatten on the user side again,

The promise can also return either an Object or an array, so I see the type might need to be:

Array<ConfigItem | Array<ConfigItem> | Promise<ConfigItem | Array<ConfigItem>>>

[nzakas]

That's beyond the scope of this RFC. If you'd like to suggest that, please open a separate issue as a starting point.

[voxpelli]

I would split this RFC into two then.

One which addresses the difficulty to extend another config and introduces the extends and another one which addresses the discoverability of exported configs.

I feel that the case for extends is quite solid. I wouldn’t say the same about the discoverability of exported configs.

[voxpelli]

I would split the two goals of this RFC into one RFC each. The case for extends is more proven and clear to me than the need for and even more so the solution for discoverability of shared configs.