Support itblock
#2077
Support itblock
#2077
Conversation
| return unless example_group_with_body?(node) | ||
|
|
||
| check_hooks(node.body) if multiline_block?(node.body) | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| alias on_numblock on_block |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This had no effect, so I removed it. It relies on a previous block and then simply uses next_sibling together with any_block (which includes itblock). I only added tests to show it already works.
| @@ -38,7 +38,6 @@ def on_block(node) | |||
| on_metadata_arguments(metadata_arguments) | |||
| end | |||
| end | |||
| alias on_numblock on_block | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This module is included in 4 cops and none have tests for numblocks. So I simply removed this one.
I don't think handling these blocks makes sense in context anyways and it was only added here because of the internal affairs cop
| @@ -39,5 +39,5 @@ Gem::Specification.new do |spec| | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| spec.add_dependency 'lint_roller', '~> 1.1' | |||
| spec.add_dependency 'rubocop', '~> 1.72', '>= 1.72.1' | |||
| spec.add_dependency 'rubocop', '~> 1.75' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
1.75 transitively depends on rubocop-ast >= 1.43.0 which is good enough
|
I guess I should clarify: |
|
Hm, coverage is reduced because when using the |
|
|
||
| context 'when Ruby 3.4', :ruby34, unsupported_on: :parser do | ||
| it 'does not flag :example for hooks' do | ||
| expect_no_offenses(<<~RUBY) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please change this to ‘it.run’ not to offend the other cop?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I copy-pasted the current numblock specs, will change these as well.
| expect_offense(<<~RUBY) | ||
| RSpec.describe User do | ||
| it { is_expected.to be_after_around_hook } | ||
| around { it } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if this would work anyway without making a special case for an it-block? Looks like a regular no-args block call with an ‘it’ call inside. No surprise, this may or may not be an it-block, hard to tell.
Side note, how does Ruby knows ‘describe { it { foo } }’ is not an it-block?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By what I propose here to keep the spec, and attempt to remove special handling in the cop. Chances are it will work anyway.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yup, that's what I did: #2077 (comment)
Side note, how does Ruby knows ‘describe { it { foo } }’ is not an it-block?
it with block had special considerations from ruby itself, it only points to the block argument when it doesn't take a block itself. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18980
The following cases have been discussed:
- it method, most famously in RSpec: You almost always pass a positional and/or block argument to RSpec's it, so the conflict is avoided with my proposal. You virtually never use a completely naked it
Earlopain
force-pushed
the
itblock-support
branch
from
e4a4818 to
3279266
Compare
Earlopain
force-pushed
the
itblock-support
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ba0f9df to
89a75bf
Compare
|
Coverage is no longer an issue (rubocop/rubocop#14119) but now there's a gnarly-looking ruby-head failure I'm 100% certain is not my fault (: (https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21357) |
All cops that handle numblock now also handle itblock. `itblock` is relatively new and the required `rubocop-ast` version is required via RuboCop 1.75
Earlopain
force-pushed
the
itblock-support
branch
from
89a75bf to
1dfb00c
Compare
All cops that handle numblock now also handle itblock.
itblockis relatively new and the requiredrubocop-astversion is required via RuboCop 1.75Before submitting the PR make sure the following are checked:
master(if not - rebase it).CHANGELOG.mdif the new code introduces user-observable changes.bundle exec rake) passes (be sure to run this locally, since it may produce updated documentation that you will need to commit).