Re: [Rails-core] [Proposal] [Feature Request] Make new rails apps rubocop compliant

That was one thought I had. That would be the easiest first pass at a gem that made the generators "compliant" - just make it add a rubocop config that allowed the default generated rails code to pass. On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:16 AM, Greg Navis wrote: > We can invert

Re: [Rails-core] [Proposal] [Feature Request] Make new rails apps rubocop compliant

We can invert the problem and make rubocop support multiple styles. I think this would be a better idea community-wide as it'd enable more projects to use rubocop without having to reformat a significant part of their code bases. I'm curious what you think. -- You received this message because

Re: [Rails-core] [Proposal] [Feature Request] Make new rails apps rubocop compliant

Yes, I now see the points against including it are valid, but it would be good to see a gem that overrides the generators to generate compliant apps. On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Andrew Kaspick wrote: > Why can't a gem be created that contains rubocop compliant

Re: [Rails-core] [Proposal] [Feature Request] Make new rails apps rubocop compliant

Why can't a gem be created that contains rubocop compliant generators and that is used? I see this as a slippery and unnecessary slope to be included directly in rails imo. On Jul 16, 2016 4:24 AM, "Xavier Noria" wrote: > We are talking here about whether to add RuboCop by

Re: [Rails-core] [Proposal] [Feature Request] Make new rails apps rubocop compliant

We are talking here about whether to add RuboCop by default to newly generated apps. This would then extend to a discussion about the configuration, whether to integrate with the test suite, etc. The answer, at least my answer, is that my experience says this is not something I want to add as a

Re: [Rails-core] [Proposal] [Feature Request] Make new rails apps rubocop compliant

> On 16 Jul 2016, at 02:00, Chad Woolley wrote: > > Most of the Rubocop failures against the standard Rubocop config are due to > fairly non-controversial formatting stuff, like using single quotes for > non-interpolated strings. This is, in fact, an excellent

Re: [Rails-core] [Proposal] [Feature Request] Make new rails apps rubocop compliant

I don't use RuboCop in personal projects. In my consultant work some clients do, some don't. Those that do have different configuration files because no two Ruby teams have the same preferences (that's probably a theorem). Even more, for Rails to be consistent it should emit a config file that

Re: [Rails-core] [Proposal] [Feature Request] Make new rails apps rubocop compliant

We run rubocop on various Rails repositories, with great results, but I remember the time spent turning off the default options that don't work for us is non-trivial (Granted, rubocop came later, bigger team, so on). If anything, you should pick the smallest subset possible of all the available

Re: [Rails-core] [Proposal] [Feature Request] Make new rails apps rubocop compliant

What is a compliant skeleton app? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group,

[Rails-core] [Proposal] [Feature Request] Make new rails apps rubocop compliant

Initially raised on Github : I understand that the project disallows cosmetic changes but: - Some projects follow stylistic rules (even rails does) - Rubocop is quick to set up, and configure (even rails uses it) - Rubocop is