-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
chore: Update Rubocop and pull in recommended plugins #72
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ | ||
require: | ||
- rubocop-rake | ||
- rubocop-rspec | ||
|
||
AllCops: | ||
TargetRubyVersion: 2.7 | ||
NewCops: enable | ||
|
@@ -20,9 +24,27 @@ Metrics/BlockLength: | |
- 'spec/**/*.rb' | ||
- 'openfeature-sdk.gemspec' | ||
|
||
Gemspec/DevelopmentDependencies: | ||
EnforcedStyle: gemspec | ||
|
||
Gemspec/RequireMFA: | ||
Enabled: false | ||
|
||
Style/DocumentDynamicEvalDefinition: | ||
# TODO re-enable after figuring out what it actually wants | ||
Enabled: false | ||
|
||
RSpec/ContextWording: | ||
Enabled: false | ||
Comment on lines
+37
to
+38
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Since we're using the OpenFeature specification language, disabling this rule as it will constantly be violated. |
||
|
||
RSpec/MultipleExpectations: | ||
Max: 2 | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I always find the single default expecation max as overly punitive; I think 2 is a much more reasonable default. |
||
|
||
RSpec/NestedGroups: | ||
Enabled: false | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Again, since we're using the specification language and nesting, I think having a maximum here is overly restrictive. |
||
|
||
RSpec/PendingWithoutReason: | ||
Enabled: false | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think the pending output is readable enough without a reason. |
||
|
||
RSpec/SpecFilePathFormat: | ||
Enabled: false | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Discussion around this started in #71 |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -34,7 +34,9 @@ Gem::Specification.new do |spec| | |
spec.add_development_dependency "markly" | ||
spec.add_development_dependency "rake", "~> 13.0" | ||
spec.add_development_dependency "rspec", "~> 3.12.0" | ||
spec.add_development_dependency "rubocop", "~> 1.37.1" | ||
spec.add_development_dependency "rubocop", "~> 1.56" | ||
spec.add_development_dependency "rubocop-rake", "~> 0.6" | ||
spec.add_development_dependency "rubocop-rspec", "~> 2.24" | ||
Comment on lines
+37
to
+39
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Honestly, I think we can remove the versioning. Since we use a That makes it a touch easier to update w/o needing to update the gemspec. |
||
spec.add_development_dependency "simplecov", "~> 0.22.0" | ||
spec.add_development_dependency "simplecov-cobertura", "~> 2.1.0" | ||
end |
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 typically don't use the
development_dependency
style and favor usingGemfile
, but I opted to use what the project already uses.