Originally added by rP20364 (D213).

Per discussion on rP23172:

@elexis wrote:

I disagree with this eslint warning and wrote the code intentionally this way.
[…]
Just because there is no let keyword doesn't mean that the block is useless.

This can be useful also in context of ProfileStart/ProfileEnd block to make
it clear what code it is meant to encapsulate. It is effectively similar
to how code can be split into separate functions without there necessarily
being something in the code that makes use of JS features unique to
function scope. It is a way of organising the code.

While it is possible that blocks are sometimes left behind by refactoring,
I suppose we prefer to catch the bad things in code review, instead of
having to tell the linter with inline structions to whitelist the cases
where it is intended.

Background

This follows-up rP23172, which introduced the following ESLint warnings:

binaries/data/mods/public/gui/lobby/LobbyPage/Game.js
  153:3  warning  Nested block is redundant  no-lone-blocks
  202:3  warning  Nested block is redundant  no-lone-blocks

binaries/data/mods/public/gui/lobby/LobbyPage/GameList.js
  110:3  warning  Nested block is redundant  no-lone-blocks

Alternatives

If we keep this in our ruleset, there are two other ways to address it:

1. Make an inline exemption, e.g. like so:

 		// eslint-disable-next-line no-lone-bocks
 		{
			foo.bar();
 		}

2. Or, adapt the code to follow the rule by removing the curly braces.

Happy Coala bears.