chore: disable option requireReturnForObjectLiteral in arrow-body-style

[wakamsha]

Summary

This PR is a patch for fix #212.

Disable requireReturnForObjectLiteral in arrow-body-style rule. This is because if this option is enabled, return cannot be omitted.

/*
 * eslint arrow-body-style: ["error", "as-needed", {
 *   "requireReturnForObjectLiteral": true
 * }]
 */

const foo = () => ({ foo: 0 });           // 💥Invalid
const bar = () => { return { bar: 0 }; }; // 👍Valid

TO-BE

/*
 * eslint arrow-body-style: ["error", "as-needed", {
 *   "requireReturnForObjectLiteral": false
 * }]
 */

const foo = () => ({ foo: 0 });           // 👍Valid
const bar = () => { return { bar: 0 }; }; // 💥Invalid

References

• feat: Implement the rule "es6" #212
• arrow-body-style - ESLint - Pluggable JavaScript Linter

[taigakiyokawa]

@wakamsha Why would you like to disable it? In the previous PR, you said enabling it for considering readability and I have agreed with it.

Considering readability, set requireReturnForObjectLiteral to true.

I can't see the background of this PR from your description.

[wakamsha]

@taigakiyokawa
Please read the example code in the PR description summary. When this option is enabled, you can't write a function with only one line of processing by omitting return.

It's more readable to omit return for arrow functions that have a return value and only one line of processing. The previous PR didn't consider this.

[taigakiyokawa]

@wakamsha Ah, I see. I misunderstood you thought writing return is more readable than omitting. Of course, I read your description but I didn't understand what you thought because there is no opinion in the description.

Also, it's not obvious to anyone which one is readable between writing return and omitting. It's a subjective matter and I think it's readable to write return more than omit.

[wakamsha]

@taigakiyokawa
I understand your point. thank you.
However, I don't want to be forced to return in all our codebase, so I'll disable this option.

[taigakiyokawa]

@wakamsha OK, I'd like to wait for @thinceller and @tongari07 's opinions. I will agree with you when they've agreed with you.

[tongari07]

@wakamsha @taigakiyokawa
I agree to disable this option 👍 As Kiyokawa san said, it is up to the reader to decide if it is readable. So I think it's best to leave it up to the users to enable or disable.

[taigakiyokawa]

@tongari07 This change does not mean that leave it up to users to write or omit return. Disabling requireReturnForObjectLiteral forces users to omit return by default, they cannot write return unless they overwrite the option to be enabled or turn off the rule itself.

[tongari07]

Oh sorry I misunderstood. Still, I agree with wakamsha san.

[taigakiyokawa]

OK, I respect what is readable for you all.