extension | WebExtensions add-on that talks with HappyPanda X | Media library

You are running the project via Java 1.8 and add the --add-opens option to the runner. However Java 1.8 does not support it.

So, the first option is to use Java 11 to run the project, as Java 11 can recognize this VM option.

Another solution is to find a place where --add-opens is added and remove it. Check Run configuration in IntelliJ IDEA (VM options field) and Maven/Gradle configuration files for argLine (Maven) and jvmArgs (Gradle)

I think the problem is that you are trying to use the deprecated babel-eslint parser, last updated a year ago, which looks like it doesn't support ES6 modules. Updating to the latest parser seems to work, at least for simple linting.

So, do this:

• In package.json, update the line "babel-eslint": "^10.0.2", to "@babel/eslint-parser": "^7.5.4",. This works with the code above but it may be better to use the latest version, which at the time of writing is 7.16.3.
• Run npm i from a terminal/command prompt in the folder
• In .eslintrc, update the parser line "parser": "babel-eslint", to "parser": "@babel/eslint-parser",
• In .eslintrc, add "requireConfigFile": false, to the parserOptions section (underneath "ecmaVersion": 8,) (I needed this or babel was looking for config files I don't have)
• Run the command to lint a file

Then, for me with just your two configuration files, the error goes away and I get appropriate linting errors.

Updating Navigation Safe Args

These lines are the important ones to look at:

Dependency: androidx.lifecycle:lifecycle-runtime-ktx:2.4.0. The issue is with this dependency, there may be some transitive dependency error. I would suggest use the alpha version of this dependency, worked for me. Replace with this dependency : androidx.lifecycle:lifecycle-*:2.4.0-alpha03

You missed adding this in your eslint.json file.

It looks like you have defined custom paths in your TypeScript config (usually tsconfig.json). The import plugin doesn't know about the correct location of the TypeScript config and hence cannot resolve those paths. What you need to do, is to specify the correct path to your TypeScript config via the project parameter in the resolver options:

You can add both NUnit Framework and NUnit Test Adapter using NuGet Packages.

To do that, right click on your project in Solution Explorer, go to Manage NuGet packages..., in the Browse section type nunit, install NUnit package and the corresponding version adapter (NUnitTestAdapter for NUnit 2.x or NUnit3TestAdapter for NUnit 3.x).

Ok, so I don't know if it is the correct answer, but finally changing the settings in Eslint helped me to change the type of function for Components. I added the following rule to my .eslintrc.js file:

The logic of comparing files seems alright, I don't find any outstanding problem with it, it is ok to prepend the "/" to match what you need. Could be even better if you could use the System.IO.Path.DirectorySeparatorChar for the directory root path as well, so if you run on windows or Linux you will have no issues.

But there may be a conceptual problem with what you are doing. To my understanding you aim to verify existence of specific configuration files required for your program to work right, if those files are missing than the program should fail. But that kind of failure due to missing configuration files, is an expected and valid result of your code. Yet, you unit-test this as if missing files should fail the test, as if missing files are an indication that something wrong with your code, this is wrong.

Missing files are not indication of your code not working correct and Unit-test should not be used as a validator to make sure the files exist prior executing the program, you will likely agree that unit-test is not part of the actual process and it should only aim to test your code and not preconditions, the test should compare an expected result (mock result of your code) vs. actual result and certainly not meant to become part of the code. That unit test looks like a validator that should be in the code.

So unless those files are produced by your specific code (and not the deployment) there is no sense testing that. In such case you need to create a configuration validator code - and your unit test could test that instead. So it will test that the validator expected result with a mock input you provide. But the thing here is that you would know that you only testing the validation logic and not the actual existence of the files.