Skip to content

Add support for chained method calls in Rails/Presence #1461

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

vlad-pisanov
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #932

Enhance Rails/Presence to detect and autocorrect a common scenario where a method is invoked on the receiver when it's present?, and nil otherwise:

# bad
name.present? ? name.upcase : nil
name.blank? ? nil : name.upcase
name.upcase if name.present?

# good
name.presence&.upcase

Before submitting the PR make sure the following are checked:

  • The PR relates to only one subject with a clear title and description in grammatically correct, complete sentences.
  • Wrote good commit messages.
  • Commit message starts with [Fix #issue-number] (if the related issue exists).
  • Feature branch is up-to-date with master (if not - rebase it).
  • Squashed related commits together.
  • Added tests.
  • Ran bundle exec rake default. It executes all tests and runs RuboCop on its own code.
  • Added an entry (file) to the changelog folder named {change_type}_{change_description}.md if the new code introduces user-observable changes. See changelog entry format for details.
  • If this is a new cop, consider making a corresponding update to the Rails Style Guide.


it 'does not register an offense when chained method is `[]`' do
expect_no_offenses(<<~RUBY)
a.present? ? a[1] : nil
Copy link
Contributor Author

@vlad-pisanov vlad-pisanov Mar 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this could be autocorrected, but looks wonky: a.presence&.[](1)

same with arithmetic operators, and multiple method calls

@ydakuka
Copy link
Contributor

ydakuka commented Mar 1, 2025

The cop works not only with nil as an operand, and there is a corresponding test example:

it 'registers an offense and corrects when `a.present? ? a : b`' do
  expect_offense(<<~RUBY)
    a.present? ? a : b
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Use `a.presence || b` instead of `a.present? ? a : b`.
  RUBY

  expect_correction(<<~RUBY)
    a.presence || b
  RUBY
end

However, your suggested implementation does not account for this case:

it 'does not register an offense' do
  expect_no_offenses(<<~RUBY)
    a.present? ? a.foo : b
  RUBY

  # expect_correction(<<~RUBY)
  #   a.presence&.foo || b
  # RUBY
end

or this one:

it 'does not register an offense' do
  expect_no_offenses(<<~RUBY)
    a.foo || b if a.present?
  RUBY

  # expect_correction(<<~RUBY)
  #   a.presence&.foo || b
  # RUBY
end

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Rails/Presence enhancement for chained methods
2 participants