Fix a few lgtm.com issues.

[XhmikosR]

lgtm.com is owned by GitHub and IMHO it's an extra step for checking for code issues. You could enable the integration (maybe just disable PR comments since it can get annoying)

I didn't try fixing all of the issues in this patch because some issues might indicate bigger refactoring issues.

https://lgtm.com/projects/g/npm/cli/?mode=list

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR Appreciate you bringing these changes to our attention. Many of these changes are fairly trivial but we'd still want failing tests to go along with these various updates.

I'm going to close this for now as we'll be updating standard & refactoring much of this code in the next major version of npm (ie. 7) which should address these issues.

[XhmikosR]

@darcyclarke standard is certainly not able to detect the same issues as LGTM as you can see from the link above.

Either way, fine by me.

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR you're right; With that in mind, it will probably be better to set up/add a programmatic LGTM linting check/test, in the future, vs. doing one-off changes.

Again, it makes more sense to circle back on that once we've finished refactoring for 7 though.

[XhmikosR]

lgtm.com is owned by GitHub and IMHO it's an extra step for checking for code issues. You could enable the integration (maybe just disable PR comments since it can get annoying)

I didn't try fixing all of the issues in this patch because some issues might indicate bigger refactoring issues.

https://lgtm.com/projects/g/npm/cli/?mode=list

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR Appreciate you bringing these changes to our attention. Many of these changes are fairly trivial but we'd still want failing tests to go along with these various updates.

I'm going to close this for now as we'll be updating standard & refactoring much of this code in the next major version of npm (ie. 7) which should address these issues.

[XhmikosR]

@darcyclarke standard is certainly not able to detect the same issues as LGTM as you can see from the link above.

Either way, fine by me.

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR you're right; With that in mind, it will probably be better to set up/add a programmatic LGTM linting check/test, in the future, vs. doing one-off changes.

Again, it makes more sense to circle back on that once we've finished refactoring for 7 though.

[XhmikosR]

lgtm.com is owned by GitHub and IMHO it's an extra step for checking for code issues. You could enable the integration (maybe just disable PR comments since it can get annoying)

I didn't try fixing all of the issues in this patch because some issues might indicate bigger refactoring issues.

https://lgtm.com/projects/g/npm/cli/?mode=list

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR Appreciate you bringing these changes to our attention. Many of these changes are fairly trivial but we'd still want failing tests to go along with these various updates.

I'm going to close this for now as we'll be updating standard & refactoring much of this code in the next major version of npm (ie. 7) which should address these issues.

[XhmikosR]

@darcyclarke standard is certainly not able to detect the same issues as LGTM as you can see from the link above.

Either way, fine by me.

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR you're right; With that in mind, it will probably be better to set up/add a programmatic LGTM linting check/test, in the future, vs. doing one-off changes.

Again, it makes more sense to circle back on that once we've finished refactoring for 7 though.

[XhmikosR]

lgtm.com is owned by GitHub and IMHO it's an extra step for checking for code issues. You could enable the integration (maybe just disable PR comments since it can get annoying)

I didn't try fixing all of the issues in this patch because some issues might indicate bigger refactoring issues.

https://lgtm.com/projects/g/npm/cli/?mode=list

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR Appreciate you bringing these changes to our attention. Many of these changes are fairly trivial but we'd still want failing tests to go along with these various updates.

I'm going to close this for now as we'll be updating standard & refactoring much of this code in the next major version of npm (ie. 7) which should address these issues.

[XhmikosR]

@darcyclarke standard is certainly not able to detect the same issues as LGTM as you can see from the link above.

Either way, fine by me.

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR you're right; With that in mind, it will probably be better to set up/add a programmatic LGTM linting check/test, in the future, vs. doing one-off changes.

Again, it makes more sense to circle back on that once we've finished refactoring for 7 though.

[XhmikosR]

lgtm.com is owned by GitHub and IMHO it's an extra step for checking for code issues. You could enable the integration (maybe just disable PR comments since it can get annoying)

I didn't try fixing all of the issues in this patch because some issues might indicate bigger refactoring issues.

https://lgtm.com/projects/g/npm/cli/?mode=list

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR Appreciate you bringing these changes to our attention. Many of these changes are fairly trivial but we'd still want failing tests to go along with these various updates.

I'm going to close this for now as we'll be updating standard & refactoring much of this code in the next major version of npm (ie. 7) which should address these issues.

[XhmikosR]

@darcyclarke standard is certainly not able to detect the same issues as LGTM as you can see from the link above.

Either way, fine by me.

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR you're right; With that in mind, it will probably be better to set up/add a programmatic LGTM linting check/test, in the future, vs. doing one-off changes.

Again, it makes more sense to circle back on that once we've finished refactoring for 7 though.

[XhmikosR]

lgtm.com is owned by GitHub and IMHO it's an extra step for checking for code issues. You could enable the integration (maybe just disable PR comments since it can get annoying)

I didn't try fixing all of the issues in this patch because some issues might indicate bigger refactoring issues.

https://lgtm.com/projects/g/npm/cli/?mode=list

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR Appreciate you bringing these changes to our attention. Many of these changes are fairly trivial but we'd still want failing tests to go along with these various updates.

I'm going to close this for now as we'll be updating standard & refactoring much of this code in the next major version of npm (ie. 7) which should address these issues.

[XhmikosR]

@darcyclarke standard is certainly not able to detect the same issues as LGTM as you can see from the link above.

Either way, fine by me.

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR you're right; With that in mind, it will probably be better to set up/add a programmatic LGTM linting check/test, in the future, vs. doing one-off changes.

Again, it makes more sense to circle back on that once we've finished refactoring for 7 though.

[XhmikosR]

lgtm.com is owned by GitHub and IMHO it's an extra step for checking for code issues. You could enable the integration (maybe just disable PR comments since it can get annoying)

I didn't try fixing all of the issues in this patch because some issues might indicate bigger refactoring issues.

https://lgtm.com/projects/g/npm/cli/?mode=list

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR Appreciate you bringing these changes to our attention. Many of these changes are fairly trivial but we'd still want failing tests to go along with these various updates.

I'm going to close this for now as we'll be updating standard & refactoring much of this code in the next major version of npm (ie. 7) which should address these issues.

[XhmikosR]

@darcyclarke standard is certainly not able to detect the same issues as LGTM as you can see from the link above.

Either way, fine by me.

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR you're right; With that in mind, it will probably be better to set up/add a programmatic LGTM linting check/test, in the future, vs. doing one-off changes.

Again, it makes more sense to circle back on that once we've finished refactoring for 7 though.

[XhmikosR]

lgtm.com is owned by GitHub and IMHO it's an extra step for checking for code issues. You could enable the integration (maybe just disable PR comments since it can get annoying)

I didn't try fixing all of the issues in this patch because some issues might indicate bigger refactoring issues.

https://lgtm.com/projects/g/npm/cli/?mode=list

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR Appreciate you bringing these changes to our attention. Many of these changes are fairly trivial but we'd still want failing tests to go along with these various updates.

I'm going to close this for now as we'll be updating standard & refactoring much of this code in the next major version of npm (ie. 7) which should address these issues.

[XhmikosR]

@darcyclarke standard is certainly not able to detect the same issues as LGTM as you can see from the link above.

Either way, fine by me.

[darcyclarke]

@XhmikosR you're right; With that in mind, it will probably be better to set up/add a programmatic LGTM linting check/test, in the future, vs. doing one-off changes.

Again, it makes more sense to circle back on that once we've finished refactoring for 7 though.