feat(linter/eslint-plugin-vitest): reuse no-mocks-import jest linter rule by Afsoon · Pull Request #16540 · oxc-project/oxc

Afsoon · 2025-12-05T12:28:33Z

Related to #4656

Implement no-mocks-import lint ruler adding a new entry in the mapping between jest and vitest compatible rules.

Oxlint-migrate PR related: oxc-project/oxlint-migrate#269

codspeed-hq · 2025-12-05T12:34:37Z

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #16540 will not alter performance

_{Comparing Afsoon:12-05-vitest_no_mocks_import (9734366) with main (f1581c1)¹}

Summary

✅ 4 untouched
⏩ 41 skipped²

No successful run was found on main (90c950f) during the generation of this report, so f1581c1 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩
41 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

crates/oxc_linter/src/utils/mod.rs

connorshea

The docs block in the declare_oxc_lint! should be updated to mention that this rule is compatible with Vitest as well. (we should probably consider auto-generating something in the docs for these cases as well, honestly, but for now this is how it is done).

Other rules have a note like so:

    /// This rule is compatible with [eslint-plugin-vitest](https://github.com/veritem/eslint-plugin-vitest/blob/v1.1.9/docs/rules/no-alias-methods.md),
    /// to use it, add the following configuration to your `.oxlintrc.json`:
    ///
    /// ```json
    /// {
    ///   "rules": {
    ///      "vitest/no-alias-methods": "error"
    ///   }
    /// }
    /// ```

Afsoon · 2025-12-07T07:41:11Z

@connorshea Added missing dock blocks and update the PR description to point the oxlint-migrate PR. I haven't opened before because I didn't know when to open it.

The docs block in the declare_oxc_lint! should be updated to mention that this rule is compatible with Vitest as well. (we should probably consider auto-generating something in the docs for these cases as well, honestly, but for now this is how it is done).

Other rules have a note like so:
    /// This rule is compatible with [eslint-plugin-vitest](https://github.com/veritem/eslint-plugin-vitest/blob/v1.1.9/docs/rules/no-alias-methods.md),
    /// to use it, add the following configuration to your `.oxlintrc.json`:
    ///
    /// ```json
    /// {
    ///   "rules": {
    ///      "vitest/no-alias-methods": "error"
    ///   }
    /// }
    /// ```

Just FYI, some compatibles vitest rule are missing that doc block, for example jest/prefer_each. It's out of scope of this PR, but maybe can be a good idea to review which compatible rules don't have this dock block.

connorshea · 2025-12-09T02:47:46Z

Just FYI, some compatibles vitest rule are missing that doc block, for example jest/prefer_each. It's out of scope of this PR, but maybe can be a good idea to review which compatible rules don't have this dock block.

Good point, if you want to open a PR for that change, I'd be happy to review/merge that :)

Afsoon · 2025-12-10T07:16:04Z

Just FYI, some compatibles vitest rule are missing that doc block, for example jest/prefer_each. It's out of scope of this PR, but maybe can be a good idea to review which compatible rules don't have this dock block.

Good point, if you want to open a PR for that change, I'd be happy to review/merge that :)

PR created #16679

camc314

Thanks for working on this!

Do you mind also porting the vitest test cases for this rule to ensure that we're catching all cases?

This can be done by:

just new-vitest-rule no-mocks-import

And copying over the generated test cases to crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/jest/no_mocks_import.rs, this allows us to ensure that we're reporting all cases correctly for both vitest/jest

e.g.

oxc/crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/jest/consistent_test_it.rs

Lines 794 to 795 in 4911d60


	let fail_vitest = vec![

@connorshea

…h vitest. (#16679) After the review @connorshea did in #16540 (review), suggested to me add a missing part of documentation in the linter rule. I hadn't added it because the reference rule I used lack of it. So this PR aims to add it in all jest rules stated as compatible. ## Before this PR The following Jest linter only had this documentation part: - consistent-test-it - expect-expect - no-alias-methods - no-commented-out-tests - no-disabled-tests - no-focused-tests - no-identical-title - no-test-prefixes - prefer-hooks-in-order - valid-describe-callback - valid-expect ## Adding in this PR - max-expects - max-nested-describe - no-conditional-expect - no-conditional-in-test - no-duplicate-hooks - no-hooks - no-interpolation-in-snapshots - no-restricted-jest-methods: I have doubts here see my comment in the [vitest-eslint-plugin issue](#4656 (comment)) - no-restricted-matchers - no-standalone-expect - no-test-return-statement - prefer-comparison-matcher - prefer-each - prefer-equality-matcher - prefer-expect-resolves - prefer-hooks-on-top - prefer-lowercase-title - prefer-mock-promise-shorthand - prefer-strict-equal - prefer-to-be - prefer-to-have-length - prefer-todo - require-to-throw-message - require-top-level-describe

Afsoon · 2025-12-10T14:06:35Z

@camc314 Updated the PR with the vitests test case but I have notice the diagnostic message is framework dependant. I'm not sure how to approach here:

The current approach
One diagnostic method but add a new argument, for example:

let caller = {
  if ctx.frameworks().is_vitest() {
      "vi"
  }

 "jest"
};

fn no_mocks_import_diagnostic(span: Span, call: &str) -> OxcDiagnostic {
    OxcDiagnostic::warn("Mocks should not be manually imported from a `__mocks__` directory.")
        .with_help(format!("Instead use `{call}.mock` and import from the original module path."))
        .with_label(span)
}

Duplicate the rule under the vitest folder.

camc314

Thank yoiu!

camc314 · 2025-12-10T14:10:36Z

I pushed another commit - it just merges the two diagnostic messages together. It's tricky to know if we are in a vitest/jest file, so for simplicity, we just report the same error

…e with vitest

… and message based on framework

framwork flags can sometime be unreliable, so merge the two help messages into one, and update the help text

stale - comment has been updated

@connorshea

…h vitest. (#16679) After the review @connorshea did in #16540 (review), suggested to me add a missing part of documentation in the linter rule. I hadn't added it because the reference rule I used lack of it. So this PR aims to add it in all jest rules stated as compatible. ## Before this PR The following Jest linter only had this documentation part: - consistent-test-it - expect-expect - no-alias-methods - no-commented-out-tests - no-disabled-tests - no-focused-tests - no-identical-title - no-test-prefixes - prefer-hooks-in-order - valid-describe-callback - valid-expect ## Adding in this PR - max-expects - max-nested-describe - no-conditional-expect - no-conditional-in-test - no-duplicate-hooks - no-hooks - no-interpolation-in-snapshots - no-restricted-jest-methods: I have doubts here see my comment in the [vitest-eslint-plugin issue](#4656 (comment)) - no-restricted-matchers - no-standalone-expect - no-test-return-statement - prefer-comparison-matcher - prefer-each - prefer-equality-matcher - prefer-expect-resolves - prefer-hooks-on-top - prefer-lowercase-title - prefer-mock-promise-shorthand - prefer-strict-equal - prefer-to-be - prefer-to-have-length - prefer-todo - require-to-throw-message - require-top-level-describe

…rule (#16540) Related to #4656 Implement [no-mocks-import](https://github.com/vitest-dev/eslint-plugin-vitest/blob/main/docs/rules/no-mocks-import.md) lint ruler adding a new entry in the mapping between jest and vitest compatible rules. Oxlint-migrate PR related: oxc-project/oxlint-migrate#269 --------- Co-authored-by: Cameron Clark <[email protected]>

@connorshea

…h vitest. (oxc-project#16679) After the review @connorshea did in oxc-project#16540 (review), suggested to me add a missing part of documentation in the linter rule. I hadn't added it because the reference rule I used lack of it. So this PR aims to add it in all jest rules stated as compatible. ## Before this PR The following Jest linter only had this documentation part: - consistent-test-it - expect-expect - no-alias-methods - no-commented-out-tests - no-disabled-tests - no-focused-tests - no-identical-title - no-test-prefixes - prefer-hooks-in-order - valid-describe-callback - valid-expect ## Adding in this PR - max-expects - max-nested-describe - no-conditional-expect - no-conditional-in-test - no-duplicate-hooks - no-hooks - no-interpolation-in-snapshots - no-restricted-jest-methods: I have doubts here see my comment in the [vitest-eslint-plugin issue](oxc-project#4656 (comment)) - no-restricted-matchers - no-standalone-expect - no-test-return-statement - prefer-comparison-matcher - prefer-each - prefer-equality-matcher - prefer-expect-resolves - prefer-hooks-on-top - prefer-lowercase-title - prefer-mock-promise-shorthand - prefer-strict-equal - prefer-to-be - prefer-to-have-length - prefer-todo - require-to-throw-message - require-top-level-describe

…rule (oxc-project#16540) Related to oxc-project#4656 Implement [no-mocks-import](https://github.com/vitest-dev/eslint-plugin-vitest/blob/main/docs/rules/no-mocks-import.md) lint ruler adding a new entry in the mapping between jest and vitest compatible rules. Oxlint-migrate PR related: oxc-project/oxlint-migrate#269 --------- Co-authored-by: Cameron Clark <[email protected]>

@Afsoon

…ented (#16940) The vitest rule `no-restricted-vi-methods` is implemented via the jest rule `no-restricted-jest-methods`, but the different names prevented automatic status syncing in the rules table generation. ## Changes - **tasks/lint_rules/src/oxlint-rules.mjs**: Added special case in `syncVitestPluginStatusWithJestPluginStatus()` to map `vitest/no-restricted-vi-methods` status from `jest/no-restricted-jest-methods` ## Result The rules table will correctly show `vitest/no-restricted-vi-methods` as implemented when the lint rules tracking task is run.  <details> <summary>Original prompt</summary> > > ---- > > *This section details on the original issue you should resolve* > > <issue_title>linter: rules table does not properly mark no-restricted-vi-methods as implemented</issue_title> > <issue_description>> Working in #16540 I have notice that `vitest/no-restricted-vi-methods` is implemented but the table show as not. As you can see > > > > https://github.com/oxc-project/oxc/blob/d6d2bcd1c7b2524addab2394c2849ba809006567/crates/oxc_linter/src/utils/mod.rs#L51 > > > > Probably is due a name mistmatch. For Vitest the linter is named `no-restricted-vi-methods` but in jest is `no-restricted-jest-methods`. Following you can see how the jest rule have test case for the vitest context: > > > > https://github.com/oxc-project/oxc/blob/d6d2bcd1c7b2524addab2394c2849ba809006567/crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/jest/no_restricted_jest_methods.rs#L198-L231 > > _Originally posted by @Afsoon in [#4656](#4656 (comment) > > We should fix this by adding a one-off logic change to the rule list generation logic when mapping jest<->vitest rules, probably?</issue_description> > > ## Comments on the Issue (you are @copilot in this section) > > <comments> > </comments> > </details>  - Fixes #16732  --- ✨ Let Copilot coding agent [set things up for you](https://github.com/oxc-project/oxc/issues/new?title=✨+Set+up+Copilot+instructions&body=Configure%20instructions%20for%20this%20repository%20as%20documented%20in%20%5BBest%20practices%20for%20Copilot%20coding%20agent%20in%20your%20repository%5D%28https://gh.io/copilot-coding-agent-tips%29%2E%0A%0A%3COnboard%20this%20repo%3E&assignees=copilot) — coding agent works faster and does higher quality work when set up for your repo.

@Afsoon

…ented (oxc-project#16940) The vitest rule `no-restricted-vi-methods` is implemented via the jest rule `no-restricted-jest-methods`, but the different names prevented automatic status syncing in the rules table generation. ## Changes - **tasks/lint_rules/src/oxlint-rules.mjs**: Added special case in `syncVitestPluginStatusWithJestPluginStatus()` to map `vitest/no-restricted-vi-methods` status from `jest/no-restricted-jest-methods` ## Result The rules table will correctly show `vitest/no-restricted-vi-methods` as implemented when the lint rules tracking task is run.  <details> <summary>Original prompt</summary> > > ---- > > *This section details on the original issue you should resolve* > > <issue_title>linter: rules table does not properly mark no-restricted-vi-methods as implemented</issue_title> > <issue_description>> Working in oxc-project#16540 I have notice that `vitest/no-restricted-vi-methods` is implemented but the table show as not. As you can see > > > > https://github.com/oxc-project/oxc/blob/d6d2bcd1c7b2524addab2394c2849ba809006567/crates/oxc_linter/src/utils/mod.rs#L51 > > > > Probably is due a name mistmatch. For Vitest the linter is named `no-restricted-vi-methods` but in jest is `no-restricted-jest-methods`. Following you can see how the jest rule have test case for the vitest context: > > > > https://github.com/oxc-project/oxc/blob/d6d2bcd1c7b2524addab2394c2849ba809006567/crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/jest/no_restricted_jest_methods.rs#L198-L231 > > _Originally posted by @Afsoon in [oxc-project#4656](oxc-project#4656 (comment) > > We should fix this by adding a one-off logic change to the rule list generation logic when mapping jest<->vitest rules, probably?</issue_description> > > ## Comments on the Issue (you are @copilot in this section) > > <comments> > </comments> > </details>  - Fixes oxc-project#16732  --- ✨ Let Copilot coding agent [set things up for you](https://github.com/oxc-project/oxc/issues/new?title=✨+Set+up+Copilot+instructions&body=Configure%20instructions%20for%20this%20repository%20as%20documented%20in%20%5BBest%20practices%20for%20Copilot%20coding%20agent%20in%20your%20repository%5D%28https://gh.io/copilot-coding-agent-tips%29%2E%0A%0A%3COnboard%20this%20repo%3E&assignees=copilot) — coding agent works faster and does higher quality work when set up for your repo.

Afsoon requested a review from camc314 as a code owner December 5, 2025 12:28

github-actions bot added A-linter Area - Linter C-enhancement Category - New feature or request labels Dec 5, 2025

Afsoon mentioned this pull request Dec 5, 2025

☂️ eslint-plugin-vitest #4656

Open

connorshea reviewed Dec 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

crates/oxc_linter/src/utils/mod.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

connorshea previously requested changes Dec 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

Afsoon changed the title ~~feat(linter/eslint-plugin-vitest): reuse the jest linter rule~~ feat(linter/eslint-plugin-vitest): reuse no-mocks-import jest linter rule Dec 7, 2025

Afsoon force-pushed the 12-05-vitest_no_mocks_import branch from daea57d to 3ad66ee Compare December 7, 2025 07:35

Afsoon mentioned this pull request Dec 7, 2025

feat(eslint-plugin-vitest): Add no mocks import as a vitest compatible rule oxc-project/oxlint-migrate#269

Merged

Afsoon force-pushed the 12-05-vitest_no_mocks_import branch from 3ad66ee to ff3ba37 Compare December 10, 2025 03:40

Afsoon mentioned this pull request Dec 10, 2025

docs(linter): Added in the missing jest rules that are compatible with vitest. #16679

Merged

camc314 self-assigned this Dec 10, 2025

camc314 requested changes Dec 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

Afsoon force-pushed the 12-05-vitest_no_mocks_import branch from ff3ba37 to 51019f0 Compare December 10, 2025 13:59

camc314 approved these changes Dec 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

Afsoon and others added 4 commits December 10, 2025 14:10

feat(linter/eslint-plugin-vitest): reuse the jest linter rule

76b360d

feat(linter/eslint-plugin-vitest): Mention that this rule can be reus…

cc4f827

…e with vitest

feat(linter/eslint-plugin-vitest): Extend test with vitest test cases…

9f7f75a

… and message based on framework

u

9734366

framwork flags can sometime be unreliable, so merge the two help messages into one, and update the help text

camc314 force-pushed the 12-05-vitest_no_mocks_import branch from da395e9 to 9734366 Compare December 10, 2025 14:10

camc314 merged commit a1d9bbd into oxc-project:main Dec 10, 2025
19 checks passed

connorshea mentioned this pull request Dec 11, 2025

linter: rules table does not properly mark no-restricted-vi-methods as implemented #16732

Closed

Boshen mentioned this pull request Dec 15, 2025

release(apps): oxlint v1.33.0 && oxfmt v0.18.0 #16888

Merged

Copilot AI mentioned this pull request Dec 16, 2025

fix(linter): Fix vitest/no-restricted-vi-methods not marked as implemented #16940

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

feat(linter/eslint-plugin-vitest): reuse no-mocks-import jest linter rule#16540

feat(linter/eslint-plugin-vitest): reuse no-mocks-import jest linter rule#16540
camc314 merged 4 commits intooxc-project:mainfrom
Afsoon:12-05-vitest_no_mocks_import

Afsoon commented Dec 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq bot commented Dec 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

connorshea left a comment

Uh oh!

Afsoon commented Dec 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

connorshea commented Dec 9, 2025

Uh oh!

Afsoon commented Dec 10, 2025

Uh oh!

camc314 left a comment

Uh oh!

Afsoon commented Dec 10, 2025

Uh oh!

camc314 left a comment

Uh oh!

camc314 commented Dec 10, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

Afsoon commented Dec 5, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq bot commented Dec 5, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #16540 will not alter performance

Summary

Footnotes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

connorshea left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Afsoon commented Dec 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

connorshea commented Dec 9, 2025

Uh oh!

Afsoon commented Dec 10, 2025

Uh oh!

camc314 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Afsoon commented Dec 10, 2025

Uh oh!

camc314 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

camc314 commented Dec 10, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Afsoon commented Dec 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq bot commented Dec 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Afsoon commented Dec 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading