Vladimir Klepov as a Coder

Go beyond eslint limits with these 3 tricks

My current obsession with statically checking JS code got me to appreciate eslint even more. Recently, I've shown you how to use no-restricted-syntax to lint almost anything. Still, like any tool, eslint has its limits — often a precise rule bends eslint too much, and is not practical to support. For example, eslint can't look into another module. Some smart plugins (like plugin-import) can work around that, but it's not something I'd be comfortable doing myself. Luckily, I know several tricks that let you bypass these limitations!

I'm currently building infrastructure to support mini-apps (microfrontends, plugins, call them whatever you want) — smaller front-end applications that run side-by-side in a single JS context. As you can guess, such apps need special restrictions not to collide with each other — CSS must be scoped, DOM ids are prohibited, and so on. Enforcing these restrictions with eslint was a breeze. Ensuring unique localStorage keys across all apps is trickier: even if we specify that the keys must follow <appName>:<key> convention, there's no clear way to lint it.

Forcing an explicit string prefix, as in localStorage.setItem('settings:name') prevents the users from extracting the keys to a common module, which is a good practice. Once the localStorage is accessed with a variable key, localStorage.setItem(nameKey), all bets are off as you can't peek into the contents of nameKey. But here's what you can do instead.

Facade API + banning the raw version

The most convenient choice in this case was to provide a wraper API, appLocalStorage, that would prefix all keys with appName, along the lines of

export const appLocalStorage = {
setItem(name) {
return localStorage.setItem(`${appName}:${key}`);
// etc

Then we could ban the raw localStorage with a combination of no-restricted-globals and no-restricted-properties or even a no-restricted-syntax: ['error', 'Identifier[name=localStorage]'], forcing everyone to use the safe wrapper.

In other cases, however, the raw API is not easily bannable either — how to force all React components to use forwardRef if the raw component is just a function? Read on!

Runime check

Another possibility to restrict some patterns is enforcing a runtime JS check that warns the developer if he does something wrong. Going on with our localStorage example, we could monkey-patch localStorage to give a warning whenever the key requested is not prefixed:

const setItem = localStorage.setItem;
const prefix = `${appName}:`;
window.localStorage.setItem = (key, value) => {
if (!key.startsWith(prefix)) {
console.error(`localStorage: "${key}" must start with "${prefix}"`);
setItem(key, value);

This approach has a standard drawback of runtime checks — if the developer doesn't hit the code that fails when working on a feature, he'll never know he's done something wrong. With some client error monitoring in place, you could replace console.error with

setTimeout(() => {
throw new Error(`localStorage: "${key}" must start with "${prefix}"`);
}, 0);

The error is thrown asynchronously, so that the access does not explode. If any user, or even your QA, hits the violation, the error message will be caught by your monitoring, and you'll have a chance to fix it sooner. Still not perfect, because there's a large gap between introducting the error and seeing it, but better than nothing.

If you're against modifying builtins, you can instead set up a periodic check:

setInterval(() => {
if (Object.keys(localStorage)).some(k => !k.startsWith(`${appName}:`)) {
// throw new Error('...') works just as well
}, 1000);

This method is best suited to new apps. Hopefully, when developing a feature you run it to see if it works, and get a helpful warning. Integrating this approach into an app that already has a lot of code potentially violating the rule requires you to manually check all the possibly affected scenarios, which is usually not fun. Hopefully, we can improve this a bit.

Unit test-time checks

Runtime checks work, but rely on developer's luck (or QA testing a case that causes the error), and may report the error too late (worst case — in production). Unit tests are a great way to make sure a certain piece of code is run during the CI process. A jest expectation for our localStorage case would be...

const keys = Object.keys(localStorage);
expect(keys.every(k => k.startsWith(`${appName}:`))).toBeTrue();

And you can even put this into afterEach / afterAll to automatically check for invalid keys after each test. From here, it's a matter of ensuring all localStorage uses are covered with tests — the ease of this task depends on your coverage thresholds. Not universally applicable, but a helpful technique nevertheless.

Today we've learnt three methods that overcome the limitations of eslint and effectively let you enforce very complicated restrictions:

  • Enforcing facade API (the most convenient method)
  • Runtime check (works best for new apps)
  • Extra check in unit tests (requires high coverage)

And this is probably all I can tell you about eslint.

Hello, friend! My name is Vladimir, and I love writing about web development. If you got down here, you probably enjoyed this article. My goal is to become an independent content creator, and you'll help me get there by buying me a coffee!
More? All articles ever
Older? Become the master of your eslint with no-restricted-syntax Newer? Two practical uses for capture event listeners