Lots of RuboCop offenses

[zacholauson]

I would be happy to help either disable some of the active RuboCop inspections, or change the code to follow the default inspections.

Do you guys have any preference on how to solve all of these?

[solnic]

Hey, yes I'd accept a PR that fixes the issues with the exception of .() calls, I love it and I want to make it more popular, esp. that you can attach some extra meaning to it, ie. such calls could mean a side-effect-less call that is functional. I hope @AMHOL can get used to it? 😂

[zacholauson]

Awesome. I like the .() call syntax as well. I haven't seen it used very much so its cool to see it used so consistently in this project.

I'll start working through the offenses and post back if I have any questions about desired code style.

Thanks!

[zacholauson]

@solnic / @AMHOL, I opened a work in progress pull request as I work through the offenses. Initially I disabled the inspection that prefers .call() over .(), but we could also change this inspection to enforce .() over .call(). What would you guys prefer?

[solnic]

I'd say we should simply disable this check
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 at 20:05, Zach Olauson notifications@github.com wrote:

@solnic https://github.com/solnic, I opened a work in progress pull
request as I work through the offenses. Initially I disabled the inspection
that prefers .call() over .(), but we could also change this inspection
to enforce .() over .call(). What would you prefer?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#33 (comment)
.

[zacholauson]

Sounds good. Thanks @solnic

[AMHOL]

@solnic @zacholauson I can live with it lol

[zacholauson]

Hey guys, just as an update. I've been home visiting family so I haven't been working on this much. I plan to continue to work on it this weekend, I have about 10 offenses left.

[solnic]

No worries man :) BTW a lot of code has been moved to dry-logic.