[feature] Friendlier checking of validator directive names

[RandomShaper]

Angular builtin validators are suffixed with Validator, not Directive.

Would it be possible to allow directives to follow that, as long as they implement the Validator interface?

[wKoza]

it seems to make sense. I'm ok.

[mgechev]

What do you think about extending the properties of directive-class-suffix to allow an array of suffixes? The drawback is that its not context dependent validation but the rule will be more configurable.

An alternative is to use Directive or Validator by default (check the class implements Validator and if it does require Validator suffix) and fallback to other configuration options if provided.

[wKoza]

I had thought about that, but as you say, its not context dependent. I prefer the second option even if it's not extensible.
We should also manage the case of AsyncValidator.

[RandomShaper]

Yes, the second option seems the way to go.

And in addition to AsyncValidator, suffix ValueAccesor for the ControlValueAccessor interface.

I've checked the Angular API for more interesting directive naming cases and I don't see any other naming schema of interest for developers. Either they begin with Ng (which seems to give them permission to skip the naming guidelines) or are too core to think someone will need to do anything similar.

And if someone does, well, after all you are not following the guidelines, so a lint is what you deserve. :)

[wKoza]

mhm, i'm not in favour of implementing a rule for a ControlValueAccessor . For me, it's just a Component with a specific behaviour. @mgechev , an opinion ?

[RandomShaper]

The check would be for directives implementing that interface, allowing/forcing them to have the right suffix in their name.

That is, leaving components alone.

[mgechev]

@wKoza, this sounds good.

[mgechev]

Will take this one right now.