Null comparisons without type-checking operators may not work as intended JS-0059
Bug risk
5 months ago
—
5 months old
Use '===' to compare with null.
827 }();
828 return o2;
829 }, I.parseInline = function(e2, t2) {
830 if (null == e2)831 throw new Error("marked.parseInline(): input parameter is undefined or null");
832 if ("string" != typeof e2)
833 throw new Error("marked.parseInline(): input parameter is of type " + Object.prototype.toString.call(e2) + ", string expected");Use '===' to compare with null.
31 }
32 }
33 function s(e2, t2) {
34 (null == t2 || t2 > e2.length) && (t2 = e2.length); 35 for (var u2 = 0, n2 = new Array(t2); u2 < t2; u2++)
36 n2[u2] = e2[u2];
37 return n2;Use '===' to compare with null.
314 var r2 = n2[1] || n2[2] || "";
315 if (!r2 || "" === u2 || this.rules.inline.punctuation.exec(u2)) {
316 var i2 = n2[0].length - 1, s2 = i2, l2 = 0, a2 = "*" === n2[0][0] ? this.rules.inline.emStrong.rDelimAst : this.rules.inline.emStrong.rDelimUnd;
317 for (a2.lastIndex = 0, t3 = t3.slice(-1 * e3.length + i2); null != (n2 = a2.exec(t3)); ) {318 var o2, D2 = n2[1] || n2[2] || n2[3] || n2[4] || n2[5] || n2[6];
319 if (D2) {
320 if (o2 = D2.length, n2[3] || n2[4])Use '===' to compare with null.
443 if (this.tokens.links) {
444 var D2 = Object.keys(this.tokens.links);
445 if (0 < D2.length)
446 for (; null != (n3 = this.tokenizer.rules.inline.reflinkSearch.exec(o2)); )447 D2.includes(n3[0].slice(n3[0].lastIndexOf("[") + 1, -1)) && (o2 = o2.slice(0, n3.index) + "[" + b("a", n3[0].length - 2) + "]" + o2.slice(this.tokenizer.rules.inline.reflinkSearch.lastIndex));
448 }
449 for (; null != (n3 = this.tokenizer.rules.inline.blockSkip.exec(o2)); )Use '===' to compare with null.
446 for (; null != (n3 = this.tokenizer.rules.inline.reflinkSearch.exec(o2)); )
447 D2.includes(n3[0].slice(n3[0].lastIndexOf("[") + 1, -1)) && (o2 = o2.slice(0, n3.index) + "[" + b("a", n3[0].length - 2) + "]" + o2.slice(this.tokenizer.rules.inline.reflinkSearch.lastIndex));
448 }
449 for (; null != (n3 = this.tokenizer.rules.inline.blockSkip.exec(o2)); )450 o2 = o2.slice(0, n3.index) + "[" + b("a", n3[0].length - 2) + "]" + o2.slice(this.tokenizer.rules.inline.blockSkip.lastIndex);
451 for (; null != (n3 = this.tokenizer.rules.inline.escapedEmSt.exec(o2)); )
452 o2 = o2.slice(0, n3.index + n3[0].length - 2) + "++" + o2.slice(this.tokenizer.rules.inline.escapedEmSt.lastIndex), this.tokenizer.rules.inline.escapedEmSt.lastIndex--;
Description
Comparing to null without a type-checking operator (=== or !==), can have unintended results as the comparison will evaluate to true when comparing to not just a null, but also an undefined value.
Bad Practice
if (flag == null) {
change();
}
while (isSet != null) {
handle();
}
Recommended
if (flag === null) {
change();
}
while (isSet !== null) {
handle();
}