ignore multiple rules + ~ syntax

[grosser]

@acrmp

[grosser]

I'd say 99% of cases is that 1 line violates 1 rule. Even if 1 line violates more then 1 rule I would consider it a bad practice to just ignore all (including future) rules. Writing down all the rules will also make it easier for someone to just go in there and google what the hell FCXYZ is and maybe see it's describing something that's really bad. It also makes search easy if you want to fix all things that use search / invalid modes etc.

[acrmp]

There are examples of the types of expressions in the choose rules to apply feature. It covers logical ANDs but I don't think these are useful here so I retract the FUD about more complex expressions. It would be good to avoid having two implementations of tags though. I'd be open to losing the dependency on gherkin where we lift the tag support from as an alternative.

[acrmp]

The regression check says that your figure of 99% is not far off. I agree that we should encourage use of rule codes rather than other tags with this feature. On the other hand as a user having syntax that purports to be the same as the CLI but doesn't work when I try to use it in the same way would be really annoying.

[grosser]

I think it would be great to get a release out and see if anyone complains,
99% won't need complex expressions and of the 1% left maybe 10% know how to
do complex expressions :)
Maybe pick to an old branch and do 1.xxx ...

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Andrew Crump notifications@github.comwrote:

The regression checkhttps://github.com/acrmp/foodcritic/blob/e1a232a11ddf1beae2ba601eaf7a972cded918fe/spec/regression/expected-output.txtsays that your figure of 99% is not far off. I agree that we should
encourage use of rule codes rather than other tags with this feature. On
the other hand as a user having syntax that purports to be the same as the
CLI but doesn't work when I try to use it in the same way would be really
annoying.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/119#issuecomment-15088194
.

[acrmp]

Hi Michael,

I merged your changes but also ported them to use the same expression support as the cli in 99c57fa.

Thanks,

Andrew.

[acrmp]

Closing. Thanks Michael!

[acrmp]

This has been released in 2.0.0.

It looks like we may not be ignoring properly where rules act on the whole cookbook using the cookbook keyword in foodcritic. The most obvious example of this is FC019.

[JeanMertz]

Should it be possible to add the ignore syntax above the line to be ignored? Enforcing 80 character rule, having a long string might make it more readable to put this above the actual line:

# we should ignore this during compile time
if node['ec2'] && !node['chef']['server']['elastic_ip'].empty? # ~FC023
  aws_elastic_ip 'chef server' do
    ...
  end
end

vs:

# ~FC023 -- we should ignore this during compile time
if node['ec2'] && !node['chef']['server']['elastic_ip'].empty?
  aws_elastic_ip 'chef server' do
    ...
  end
end

[emoshaya]

I got this warning:
FC015: Consider converting definition to a LWRP: ./definitions/default.rb:1
Adding "# ~FC015" to the first line in the definitions/default.rb file did not ignore the warning...