Add a common check for boolean function naming patterns #180
Conversation
jiegillet
added
x:module/analyzer
| end | ||
|
|
||
| defp render_names(type, name) do | ||
| is_encloded_? = String.starts_with?(name, "is_") and String.ends_with?(name, "?") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Encloded - is that a word I don't know yet or a typo?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh yeah, it's totally a new word that the cool people know about, but for noobs, I guess I should change it to is_enclosed_? or something.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As a noob, I am thankful for the change 🙏 After turning 25 I stopped being able to catch up with what's cool now and what isn't. I still try to spell words correctly, like a nerd 😞
| true -> "#{name_without_?} or #{type} #{name_without_is}" | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| {"#{type} #{name}", "#{type} #{correct_name}"} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering about the comment here. In case of defmacro is_foo?, we will have those variables.
actual = "defmacro is_foo?"
expected = "defmacro is_foo or defmacro foo?"
Now we have no way of enclosing both potential names separately with backticks in the markdown comment because they're in a single variable. The best we can have is something like this, which isn't technically correct Elixir code:
expected:
defmacro is_foo or defmacro foo?
I'm thinking maybe we need three different comments. One for functions and one for guards, both of which have a single expected name, and a third one for macros, that will have two expected names. This would also allow us to write more tailored explanations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One way to make it correct code is to change to # or defmacro foo?, but your suggestion is better :)
Closes #168.
This one is fairly straightforward.