/// keep-sorted for switch statements

[GauBen]

Clear and concise description of the problem

Hey there, I'm back with another suggestion: /// keep-sorted for switch statements. The idea comes from this file

Suggested solution

Basic

/// keep-sorted
switch (x) {
  case "b":
    doB();
    break
  case "a":
    doA();
    break;
}

// ->

/// keep-sorted
switch (x) {
  case "a":
    doA();
    break
  case "b":
    doB();
    break;
}

Complex/weird

/// keep-sorted
switch (x) {
  case "fallback":
    falling();
  case "c":
  case "b":
    common();
    break;
  case "d":
  case "a":
    aOrD();
    break;
}

// ->

/// keep-sorted
switch (x) {
  case "a": // `a` comes before `fallback`
  case "d":
    aOrD();
    break;
  case "fallback":
    falling();
  case "b":
  case "c":
    common();
    break;
}

Alternative

No response

Additional context

No response

Validations

• Follow our Code of Conduct
• Read the Contributing Guide.
• Check that there isn't already an issue that request the same feature to avoid creating a duplicate.

[antfu]

I am not so sure about this. Switch is order sensetive, and this move could potentially change the logic by a lot. personally, I don't think it's a common case where you write switch with orthogonal logic while having so many cases to sort.

[GauBen]

Maybe if the rule is limited to static identifiers and forbids falling-through cases (only aliases, like the file in the first message) it might be safe