We removed it in commit d639cd58 because it recommended using `uniq`
where `distinct` was more appropriate. This has been fixed in
rubocop-rails 2.6.0.
This is something we should do everywhere because concurrent requests
might bypass Rails uniqueness validations. However, since there are
places where we aren't applying this rule and adding a unique index
means we also need to destroy any hypothetical duplicate records, it's
something we aren't going to solve right now. Therefore we use the
"refactor" severity so existing offenses don't get in our way.
In any case, we're adding the rule so we don't make the same mistake in
the future.
This rule was added in rubocop-rspec 1.39.0. The `visible: false` option
is equivalent to `visible: :all`, but we generally use it meaning
`visible: :hidden` for positive expectations and `visible: :all` for
negative expectations.
The only exceptations are tests where we count the number of map icons
present. I'm assuming in this case we care about the number of map icons
independently on whether they are currently shown in the map, so I'm
keeping the `visible: :all` behavior in this case.
This rule was added in Rubocop 0.91.0. A similar rule named
LeakyConstantDeclaration was added in rubocop-rspec 1.34.0.
Note using the FILENAMES constant did not result in an offense using the
ConstantDefinitionInBlock rule but did result in an offense using the
LeakyConstantDeclaration rule. I've simplified the code to get rid of
the constant; not sure why we were adding a constant with `||=` in the
middle of a spec.
All the code in the `bin/` and the `config/` folder has been generated
running `rake app:update`, except the `escape_javascript_fix` file,
which we've removed since the code there is already included in Rails
5.2.
I'm not sure why the code didn't work without this line, but it doesn't
seem to be necessary anymore (maybe after upgrading Ruby or Rails?).
I'm removing it now because... why not now? :) The Ruby interpreter is
raising a warning due to this line, and in Ruby 2.5 constant lookup has
changed slightly (although I don't think this line is affected by that
change).
Note about the change in the Setting model: Ruby actually ignores return
values in setter methods, so the line isn't necessary.
After upgrading the rubocop-performance gem, we're asked to change this
code:
milestones.select { |milestone| milestone.image.present? }.last
To:
milestones.reverse.find { |milestone| milestone.image.present? }
IMHO the original code is easier to read, so the performance gain isn't
worth it.
Recent versions introduce the `Layout/SpaceAroundMethodCallOperator`,
which we are going to use. We aren't upgrading to the latest rubocop
version because it conflicts with the version of Capybara we're using
and because it isn't supported by Hound.
Some rules have been renamed:
Layout/IndentAssignment is now Layout/AssignmentIndentation
Layout/IndentHeredoc is now Layout/HeredocIndentation
Layout/LeadingBlankLines is now Layout/LeadingEmptyLines
Layout/Tab is now Layout/IndentationStyle
Layout/TrailingBlankLines is now Layout/TrailingEmptyLines
Lint/StringConversionInInterpolation is now Lint/RedundantStringCoercion
Metrics/LineLength is now Layout/LineLength
Note after upgrading we get a new "offense" in the `StartWith` rule, so
we're changing the code in order to fix it.
Back in commit 49e55b4d we lowered its severity because there were a
few false positives. Back then, I didn't realize we could just whitelist
the methods causing false positives.
Thanks taitus for the tip.
Note we need to upgrade the bullet gem, although another option would be
to remove it completely.
Now we don't need the rubocop rules for deprecated methods, since using
them will raise an error and we'll be notified immediately.
Our manual implementation had a few issues. In particular, it didn't
track changes related to associations, which became more of an issue
when we made investments translatable.
Using audited gives us more functionality while at the same time
simplifies our code. However, it adds one more external dependency to
our project.
The reason for choosing audited over paper trail is audited seems to
make it easier to handle associations.
Class variables in Ruby are not the same as instance variables of a
class. They're particularly tricky when it comes to inheritance and
modules.
In the case of the Measurable module, for example, using a class
variable will make all classes including the Measurable module share
the same value. However, that's not what we want; we want the variable
to be different for every class. And that's accomplished using a class
instance variable.
Although in this case it would probably be better to remove the caching
variable. I don't think these methods are called more than once during a
request, and even if they did it's highly unlikely the would become a
bottleneck.
The `and` and `or` keywords are not equivalent to `&&` and `||` and its
use is counterintuitive. Here's an example
```
good = true && false # good if false
bad = true and false # bad is true
```
The reason is `and` and `or` are control flow operators. So the code:
```
bad = true and false
```
Is equivalent to:
```
if bad = true
false
end
```
I had mixed feelings about this rule, since I like spaces where
possible.
However, I changed my mind when I realized writing `->(thing) { }` was
similar to defining a method, and we don't have a space before the
parenthesis when defining a method.
A bit of history in order to understand this change.
A year ago we introduced Hound so it would review our pull requests and
warn contributors when they weren't following our coding style.
However, back then we had many rules we hadn't reviewed yet, and we
weren't sure we wanted to ask contributors to follow them.
So we decided to split these files: .rubocop_basic.yml would contain
rules we had already agreed on and wanted contributors to respect, and
.rubocop.yml would contain rules we still had to review.
Now we've finally gone through all these rules. We've removed some of
them, kept some of them, added new ones, and applied them.
Now all rules with a severity level of "convention" or higher return no
offenses. The rules with "severity: refactor" return some offenses,
though:
* Metrics/LineLenght can only be properly accomplished when we define
better multi-line indentation standards, while in some cases long lines
indicate we need to refactor the code
* Rails/DynamicFindBy returns a few false positives
* Rails/HasManyOrHasOneDependent should by all means be implemented,
although it will not be a trivial task
* Rails/SaveBang returns a few false positives and there are a couple of
places where we skip it on purpose
There are also rules excluding some files:
* Rails/InverseOf returns a false positive
* Rails/OutputSafety is ignored on purpose when we add auto-links to a
text we trust
* RSpec/InstanceVariable returns false positives in two files
Other than that, everything works as expected.
