[Fix #14535] Fix autocorrect for Style/ExplicitBlockArgument when there are two methods that share the same implementation
#14537
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Earlopain
force-pushed
the
explicit-block-duplicate-implementation
branch
from
800660f to
3155426
Compare
koic
reviewed
Sep 18, 2025
Comment on lines
295
to
310
| expect_offense(<<~RUBY) | ||
| def foo | ||
| def bar.baz | ||
| bat { |xyz| yield xyz } | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Consider using explicit block argument in the surrounding method's signature over `yield`. | ||
| end | ||
| end | ||
| RUBY | ||
|
|
||
| expect_correction(<<~RUBY) | ||
| def foo | ||
| def bar.baz(&block) | ||
| bat(&block) | ||
| end | ||
| end | ||
| RUBY |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That just my two cents. The variable name bat might feel a bit abrupt. It could be better to replace it with a metasyntactic variable like the following, for example.
Suggested change
| expect_offense(<<~RUBY) | |
| def foo | |
| def bar.baz | |
| bat { |xyz| yield xyz } | |
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Consider using explicit block argument in the surrounding method's signature over `yield`. | |
| end | |
| end | |
| RUBY | |
| expect_correction(<<~RUBY) | |
| def foo | |
| def bar.baz(&block) | |
| bat(&block) | |
| end | |
| end | |
| RUBY | |
| expect_offense(<<~RUBY) | |
| def foo | |
| def bar.baz | |
| qux { |quux| yield quux } | |
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Consider using explicit block argument in the surrounding method's signature over `yield`. | |
| end | |
| end | |
| RUBY | |
| expect_correction(<<~RUBY) | |
| def foo | |
| def bar.baz(&block) | |
| qux(&block) | |
| end | |
| end | |
| RUBY |
… when there are two methods that share the same implementation Nodes are only compared by their content, not location. So it fails to place the def argument in the second case. Also added a test that a nested method definition places the block argument at the correct def node.
Earlopain
force-pushed
the
explicit-block-duplicate-implementation
branch
from
3155426 to
d42e351
Compare
|
Thanks @Earlopain! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Fix #14535
Nodes are only compared by their content, not location. So it fails to place the def argument in the second case.
Also added a test that a nested method definition places the block argument at the correct def node.
Before submitting the PR make sure the following are checked:
[Fix #issue-number](if the related issue exists).master(if not - rebase it).bundle exec rake default. It executes all tests and runs RuboCop on its own code.{change_type}_{change_description}.mdif the new code introduces user-observable changes. See changelog entry format for details.