Meta: Warn contributors against using `?.` indiscriminately by Copilot · Pull Request #9197 · refined-github/refined-github

Copilot · 2026-04-15T11:34:40Z

The repo had no rule preventing the use of ?. optional chaining. This PR adds a custom refined-github/no-optional-chaining ESLint rule scoped to source/features/** that blocks ?. property access in favor of !.. When ?. is genuinely justified, developers can document it with a comment on the same or preceding line, or add a suppression entry.

Changes

eslint.config.js: defines an inline refinedGithubPlugin with a no-optional-chaining rule, registered as refined-github/no-optional-chaining: 'error', scoped to source/features/** only. The rule handles all MemberExpression[optional=true] nodes with two behaviors:
- If the object is a $() call, it reports a more specific message: "Either use $optional() with ?. or $() without. $() will throw when the element is not found." — previously this was a separate no-restricted-syntax entry, now consolidated into the custom plugin.
- Otherwise, it reports: "Use !. instead of ?.. Add a comment on the same or preceding line describing in which scenario the value can CURRENTLY be null. If you cannot find such a scenario, use !. instead."
- Exception: any ?. whose immediately preceding line starts with // or ends with */, or whose same line contains a trailing // comment, is exempt — developers can document why a value may be nullish with a plain comment instead of a suppression entry.
source/features/bugs-tab.tsx: updated ApiResponse type to remove unnecessary optional markers on issues, labels, and nodes (always present in the API response). Replaced repository?.issues?.totalCount and repository?.labels?.nodes?.find(...) with direct non-optional access. Remaining label?. usages are kept with explanatory comments since label may genuinely be undefined.
eslint-suppressions.json: regenerated using ESLint v9's suppression feature. All entries reference refined-github/no-optional-chaining by name. After scoping the rule to source/features/, adding both comment exceptions, and fixing bugs-tab.tsx, the file was pruned to 55 suppressions across 37 files (down from the initial 139/77). New code must use !., add an explanatory comment next to or before the ?., or add a suppression entry with justification.

Test URLs

Screenshot

Agent-Logs-Url: https://github.com/refined-github/refined-github/sessions/ea867e40-ec76-44bd-87ac-7b8a37f901e0 Co-authored-by: fregante <[email protected]>

fregante · 2026-04-15T12:37:51Z

@copilot no the rule should block ?. in favor of !.

If ?. is justified, people will have to disable the rule with an explanation of why the property might be missing. The explanation cannot be "it might change in the future" as that's exactly when we want the code to fail.

I did not mention querySelector at all, the rule applies to all code indiscriminately

…al chaining Co-authored-by: Copilot <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: fregante <[email protected]>

Copilot · 2026-04-15T13:30:16Z

@copilot no the rule should block ?. in favor of !.

If ?. is justified, people will have to disable the rule with an explanation of why the property might be missing. The explanation cannot be "it mi...

Understood — the rule should block all ?. in favor of !., not just after querySelector. I've added eslint-disable-next-line no-restricted-syntax -- <reason> comments to all existing ?. usages across the codebase (commit 5c31785), documenting why each one is intentionally optional. The remaining step is updating eslint.config.js to use the broad MemberExpression[optional=true] selector instead of the narrow querySelector-only one.

fregante

@copilot revert all eslint-disable change. Every single one.

You should use the new eslint suppression feature instead

…nal=true] rule, use ESLint suppressions file for existing violations Agent-Logs-Url: https://github.com/refined-github/refined-github/sessions/390235c0-198f-43ec-96ca-07e298d76711 Co-authored-by: fregante <[email protected]>

Copilot · 2026-04-15T14:35:09Z

@copilot revert all eslint-disable change. Every single one.

You should use the new eslint suppression feature instead

Done in 0be0731. Reverted all eslint-disable inline comments and instead used ESLint v9's --suppress-rule no-restricted-syntax to generate an eslint-suppressions.json file for all pre-existing ?. violations. The eslint.config.js now uses the broad MemberExpression[optional=true] selector.

…l and suppress via eslint-suppressions.json Agent-Logs-Url: https://github.com/refined-github/refined-github/sessions/16b19256-e785-48b5-96bc-a60dcb2426b9 Co-authored-by: fregante <[email protected]>

fregante · 2026-04-15T18:05:59Z

@copilot create a custom plugin and rule instead. This way the exceptions will include the name of the rule instead of the "no-restricted-syntax"

fregante · 2026-04-15T18:08:15Z

@SunsetTechuila I know the rule will be kinda noisy, but I want to explore what it means for the repo. I don't want to have to manually ask each PR if ?. matches our expectations regarding failing code. I wrote that long comment enough times already

…ed-github/no-optional-chaining rule Agent-Logs-Url: https://github.com/refined-github/refined-github/sessions/5b545f27-9b4d-480d-961e-999fb49b5f97 Co-authored-by: fregante <[email protected]>

…e suppressions Agent-Logs-Url: https://github.com/refined-github/refined-github/sessions/9a1f7e53-5fc3-46a2-9f3b-452e48c9f8a8 Co-authored-by: fregante <[email protected]>

Copilot · 2026-04-15T18:29:30Z

@copilot also move the one related to $optional into the same rule. It should just change the error message to be more specific.

Next: add an exception to any code preceded by a comment...

Done in fb6195a:

$()?. moved into the custom rule — removed the MemberExpression[optional=true][object.callee.name=$] entry from no-restricted-syntax; the custom rule now checks node.object.callee.name === '$' and reports the specific message.
Comment exception added — any ?. whose immediately preceding line starts with // or ends with */ is exempt. Implemented by checking sourceCode.lines[node.loc.start.line - 2].
Suppressions pruned — regenerated eslint-suppressions.json down to 103 suppressions across 55 files (from 139/77), removing entries that are now exempt via the comment exception or were already stale.

fregante · 2026-04-15T18:18:23Z

 	},
+	{
+		plugins: {
+			'refined-github': refinedGithubPlugin,


I can't believe it's so easy to create custom plugins/rules now 😍 it used to be a PITA before flat config. This opens the floodgates to all kinds of rules that would be too complex for no-restricted-syntax.

fregante · 2026-04-15T18:49:03Z

+
+						context.report({
+							node,
+							message: 'Use `!.` instead of `?.`. If the value can be nullish, disable this rule with a comment explaining why.',


Before merge: this message needs to be extended to explain what we expect from the comment. Example: describe in what scenario the value can CURRENTLY be null. If you cannot CURRENTLY find a nullish value, use !. instead.

Updated in 625f1b8 — the error message now reads: "Use !. instead of ?.. Add a comment on the same or preceding line describing in which scenario the value can CURRENTLY be null. If you cannot find such a scenario, use !. instead."

SunsetTechuila · 2026-04-16T01:44:44Z

This rule doesn't catch unnecessary if statements
Optional chaining is not the main cause of most silent failures - observers are
This rule is likely going to be very annoying
Suppressions are bad. I just removed them and now you're adding as many as there were before 😭

It's not worth it at all

SunsetTechuila · 2026-04-16T02:11:04Z

This rule is likely going to be very annoying

Just check this diff. How many of those disable comments are really necessary? I'd say that barely any.

Instead of sweeping the errors under the carpet with suppressions, try to add a comment for every optional chaining use explaining why the property can be nullish and why it's safe to continue execution in that case.

fregante · 2026-04-16T06:35:23Z

This rule doesn't catch unnecessary if statements

Some is better than none. We can target those later.

Optional chaining is not the main cause of most silent failures - observers are

The observer actually has an integrated warning that's logged when it cannot find the element. Unfortunately we never enabled by default because it would need an "optional" setting for cases where the selector doesn't match every single page in include

And again, some is better than none. Yours is whataboutism.

This rule is likely going to be very annoying

True. This is an exploratory PR

Suppressions are bad. I just removed them and now you're adding as many as there were before 😭

We have 4 options:

going through the 103 instances manually, right now, and decide for each case whether it's valid or not, blaming each line for which I don't have context (because hey, nobody was forced to explain their reasoning at the time)
letting copilot silence each instance with senseless comments like it did
mark each comment as TODO that will never get tackled
using suppressions

The first one is a lot of work that requires time I might not have right now.
The second one defeats the whole purpose.
The last two are equal, except one nudges you to fix each instance as you work on each feature in the future.

SunsetTechuila · 2026-04-16T06:40:02Z

some is better than none

The point was that this "some" is too small a part of "all" to justify its cost

SunsetTechuila · 2026-04-16T06:42:24Z

going through the 103 instances manually

I'm sure you'll see after just 15 instances how little value this rule has

fregante · 2026-04-16T07:40:44Z

going through the 103 instances manually

I'm sure you'll see after just 15 instances how little value this rule has

I opened the commit where copilot added the comments and can immediately see a bunch of useless chaining: 5c31785 (this PR)

None of those are necessary, repository.issue.nodes exists on repos with issues disabled too. Only 2 out of 10 question marks are valid

source/features/ci-link.tsx

That looks like an error and it should use !.

source/features/clean-conversation-filters.tsx

Valid, ok with comment

source/features/clean-conversation-headers.tsx

Valid, ok with already-existing comment

source/features/clean-readme-URL.tsx

Valid, ok with comment

I went halfway through the commit and saw a bunch of incorrect uses, as well as many valid ones. I think it's 20/80 for this, but even for valid ones I would certainly appreciate a comment explaining when we're expected to find the element.

You're right in saying it will be noisy, but it is doing its job. We can restrict the rule to features/* and it will already halve the issues.

fregante · 2026-04-16T07:44:07Z

@copilot

limit the rule to the source/features folder
update the rule to also ignore instances that have a comment inline like?.this() // like this
turn ?. into !. for source/features/bugs-tab.tsx for repository?.labels?.nodes and repository?.issues?
update suppressions

…error message, fix bugs-tab.tsx, prune suppressions Agent-Logs-Url: https://github.com/refined-github/refined-github/sessions/ee596444-031d-4660-835d-e39500a5e0c0 Co-authored-by: fregante <[email protected]>

Copilot · 2026-04-16T07:55:42Z

@copilot

limit the rule to the source/features folder

update the rule to also ignore instances that have a comment inline like?.this() // like this
...

Done in 625f1b8:

Rule limited to source/features/** — the config block now has files: ['source/features/**'].
Inline comment exception — any ?. followed by a // comment on the same line is now also exempt (in addition to the preceding-line comment exception).
bugs-tab.tsx fixed — ApiResponse type updated to remove optional markers on issues, labels, and nodes; all repository?.issues?.totalCount and repository?.labels?.nodes?.find(...) now use direct access; remaining label?. usages have explanatory comments.
Suppressions pruned — down to 55 suppressions across 37 files (from 103/55 before, and 139/77 originally).

fregante · 2026-04-16T09:08:26Z

4. I just removed them

That's the whole point of suppressions btw, for us to gradually remove them

fregante

There are ~55 suppressions at the moment. I'll address a few manually, but first I'd rather complete the select-dom/strict migration:

#8863

fregante · 2026-04-16T14:40:44Z

Let's give it a go

refined-github#9197

Add eslint rule blocking querySelector()?. in favor of $optional()

e6c63f5

Agent-Logs-Url: https://github.com/refined-github/refined-github/sessions/ea867e40-ec76-44bd-87ac-7b8a37f901e0 Co-authored-by: fregante <[email protected]>

Copilot AI assigned Copilot and fregante Apr 15, 2026

Copilot created this pull request from a session on behalf of fregante April 15, 2026 11:35 View session

Copilot finished work on behalf of fregante April 15, 2026 11:35

Copilot AI requested a review from fregante April 15, 2026 11:35

Copilot started work on behalf of fregante April 15, 2026 12:38 View session

fregante changed the title ~~Add ESLint rule blocking querySelector()?. in favor of $optional()~~ Lint rule to block ?. Apr 15, 2026

Add eslint-disable-next-line comments for no-restricted-syntax option…

5c31785

…al chaining Co-authored-by: Copilot <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: fregante <[email protected]>

Copilot AI changed the title ~~Lint rule to block ?.~~ Add ESLint rule blocking all ?. optional chaining in favor of !. Apr 15, 2026

Copilot finished work on behalf of fregante April 15, 2026 13:31

fregante reviewed Apr 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot started work on behalf of fregante April 15, 2026 14:29 View session

Copilot finished work on behalf of fregante April 15, 2026 14:37

Copilot AI requested a review from fregante April 15, 2026 14:37

fregante reviewed Apr 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread eslint.config.js

Comment thread source/features/linkify-user-labels.tsx

Copilot started work on behalf of fregante April 15, 2026 15:42 View session

Restore specific $()? rule, revert linkify-user-labels.tsx to origina…

8a27b08

…l and suppress via eslint-suppressions.json Agent-Logs-Url: https://github.com/refined-github/refined-github/sessions/16b19256-e785-48b5-96bc-a60dcb2426b9 Co-authored-by: fregante <[email protected]>

Copilot finished work on behalf of fregante April 15, 2026 15:48

Copilot AI requested a review from fregante April 15, 2026 15:48

fregante marked this pull request as ready for review April 15, 2026 18:02

Copilot started work on behalf of fregante April 15, 2026 18:06 View session

fregante marked this pull request as draft April 15, 2026 18:06

Replace no-restricted-syntax optional chaining rule with custom refin…

3cef196

…ed-github/no-optional-chaining rule Agent-Logs-Url: https://github.com/refined-github/refined-github/sessions/5b545f27-9b4d-480d-961e-999fb49b5f97 Co-authored-by: fregante <[email protected]>

Copilot started work on behalf of fregante April 15, 2026 18:17 View session

Consolidate $()? rule into custom plugin, add comment exception, prun…

fb6195a

…e suppressions Agent-Logs-Url: https://github.com/refined-github/refined-github/sessions/9a1f7e53-5fc3-46a2-9f3b-452e48c9f8a8 Co-authored-by: fregante <[email protected]>

Copilot finished work on behalf of fregante April 15, 2026 18:30

fregante reviewed Apr 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot started work on behalf of fregante April 16, 2026 07:44 View session

Limit rule to source/features/, add inline comment exception, update …

625f1b8

…error message, fix bugs-tab.tsx, prune suppressions Agent-Logs-Url: https://github.com/refined-github/refined-github/sessions/ee596444-031d-4660-835d-e39500a5e0c0 Co-authored-by: fregante <[email protected]>

Copilot AI changed the title ~~Add ESLint rule blocking all ?. optional chaining in favor of !.~~ Add ESLint rule blocking ?. optional chaining in source/features/ in favor of !. Apr 16, 2026

Copilot AI requested a review from fregante April 16, 2026 07:58

Copilot finished work on behalf of fregante April 16, 2026 07:58

lint

eb2f43d

fregante marked this pull request as ready for review April 16, 2026 11:59

fregante approved these changes Apr 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

fregante changed the title ~~Add ESLint rule blocking ?. optional chaining in source/features/ in favor of !.~~ Meta: Warn contributors against using ?. indiscriminately Apr 16, 2026

fregante added the meta Related to Refined GitHub itself label Apr 16, 2026

fregante merged commit baec020 into main Apr 16, 2026
12 checks passed

fregante deleted the copilot/add-eslint-no-restricted-syntax-rule branch April 16, 2026 14:40

fregante added a commit to SunsetTechuila/refined-github that referenced this pull request Apr 16, 2026

One fewer eslint suppression already 🎉

7a03f07

refined-github#9197

fregante mentioned this pull request Apr 23, 2026

Meta: Avoid failing silently for DOM searches #9246

Merged

Uh oh!

Conversation

Copilot AI commented Apr 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Changes

Test URLs

Screenshot

Uh oh!

fregante commented Apr 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI commented Apr 15, 2026

Uh oh!

fregante left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI commented Apr 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fregante commented Apr 15, 2026

Uh oh!

fregante commented Apr 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI commented Apr 15, 2026

Uh oh!

fregante Apr 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fregante Apr 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SunsetTechuila commented Apr 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

SunsetTechuila commented Apr 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fregante commented Apr 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

SunsetTechuila commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

SunsetTechuila commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

fregante commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

fregante commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

fregante commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

fregante left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fregante commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Copilot AI commented Apr 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

fregante commented Apr 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

SunsetTechuila commented Apr 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

SunsetTechuila commented Apr 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

fregante commented Apr 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

fregante left a comment •

edited

Loading