Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add new RSpec/RemoveConst cop #1749
Add new RSpec/RemoveConst cop #1749
Changes from all commits
754e75d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does it make sense to add an exqmple with
stub_const
as good?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
good question 🤔 We had some spec helper that used
Object.remove_const
andObject.const_set
to change a global config in our specs. This caused several issues in our CI so I added this as an example. But I'm no longer sure if this is a good example in the wild?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
More a comment for @pirj than for @swelther:
I don’t know that the
|
is necessary, but I found that any of these 3 patterns will let the current specs pass:(send _ {:send | :__send__} (sym :remove_const) _)
(send _ {:send :__send__} (sym :remove_const) _)
(send _ {:send __send__} (sym :remove_const) _)
Curiously,
(send _ {:send | __send__} (sym :remove_const) _)
will not work.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ha, another node pattern related gotcha gotcha in the same PR!
Agree,
|
is optional, but it actually helped finding a match-all node.__send__
is a named “any node”, basically the same as_
. https://docs.rubocop.org/rubocop-ast/node_pattern.html had an example with(int _value)
. I think we used that in our cops, too, but it’s not documented.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
so, do I need to change something? Sorry, I'm a bit lost here 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You may want to remove the | as it’s redundant, or to keep it for failsafe. Up to you.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like the
|
syntax more because it looks like regex and might be easier to understand. Would like to keep it :)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the docs I found this bit:
So, apparently it’s valid syntax – I just hadn’t seen it before 😳 Let’s just leave the
|
in.