Set max line length for JavaScript code comments to 80 (rather than 100)

This will need to be updated for D10

Tagged for novice for beginner developers.

Patch for 10.1.x.

@rifas-ali-pbi, The issue is using a patch based work flow and creating a fork is not needed. Therefor, credit has been removed per How is credit granted for Drupal core issues → .

What pages, if any, of the JavsaScript coding standards → need to be updated.

Has this change been tested on Drupal 10?

Tried testing by editing ajax.js

Extending a comment to 85 characters and running code-commit-check it didn't flag it.

So not sure why it's not working.

We need to modify the .eslintrc.passing.json file as well with the max-len. I have updated the file and now it is working as expected. Attached interdiff for same.

Desktop/dev/drupal/core/misc/ajax.js
    9:1  error  This line has a comment length of 215. Maximum allowed is 80  max-len
  227:1  error  This line has a comment length of 82. Maximum allowed is 80   max-len
  330:1  error  This line has a comment length of 88. Maximum allowed is 80   max-len
  616:1  error  This line has a comment length of 82. Maximum allowed is 80   max-len
  828:1  error  This line has a comment length of 99. Maximum allowed is 80   max-len

Sam Phillemon → made their first commit to this issue’s fork.

I have added the changes suggested in #27 in the file '.eslintrc.passing.json'. Also, I am seeing a lot of files get affected because of this max-len check. I am unsure whether this needs to be fixed as part of this issue or if it needs to be taken care of separately. It would be great if someone could suggest what approach is required. Below is just a sample of how the error looks for one of the files:

/Users/sam/workspace/project/drupal/core/modules/views_ui/js/views-admin.js
   224:1  error  This line has a length of 82. Maximum allowed is 80  max-len
   239:1  error  This line has a length of 81. Maximum allowed is 80  max-len
   537:1  error  This line has a length of 82. Maximum allowed is 80  max-len
   538:1  error  This line has a length of 81. Maximum allowed is 80  max-len
   547:1  error  This line has a length of 91. Maximum allowed is 80  max-len
   568:1  error  This line has a length of 82. Maximum allowed is 80  max-len
   742:1  error  This line has a length of 81. Maximum allowed is 80  max-len
   770:1  error  This line has a length of 83. Maximum allowed is 80  max-len
   849:1  error  This line has a length of 82. Maximum allowed is 80  max-len
   937:1  error  This line has a length of 82. Maximum allowed is 80  max-len
  1027:1  error  This line has a length of 82. Maximum allowed is 80  max-len
  1030:1  error  This line has a length of 82. Maximum allowed is 80  max-len

"The source branch is 2480 commits behind the target branch."

needs a rebase.

I have rebased the branch as well. Now it is up to date.

Left a comment. Probably fine to self RTBC after the one change.

We need to update the .gitlab-ci.yml file we need to add core/.eslint* to the list of changes in '🧹 JavaScript linting (eslint)':

      changes:
        - core/package.json
        - core/yarn.lock
        - "**/*.js"
        - "**/*.yml"

See how the eslint job now would fail the moment we have a js change in an issue... https://git.drupalcode.org/issue/drupal-2924755/-/jobs/1402860

@alexpott - I've made the suggested changes to the .gitlab-ci.yml file, but unfortunately, the eslint job is still failing. Could you kindly confirm whether the proposed changes are correct or if there's something I might be overlooking?

@Sam Phillemon the eslint job is failing because you've changed the rules and the code is no longer compliant. So the js code needs fixing... The build was green before because the eslint job was not running when it should because you're changing the eslint files.

@alexpott Ah, now I understand what you're saying. It caught me off guard a bit when I noticed the build was green. Thank You!

I've noticed a significant number of files have been affected by this max-len check (as mentioned in #31), and I'm unsure whether resolving this should be included in this particular issue or handled separately. Therefore, I'm uncertain about the appropriate procedure.