Use reek directly #258
Use reek directly #258
Conversation
Reek::Examiner wil be run directly so we can interact with the raw output in stead of relying on the printed output which is cumbersome to process correctly.
|
@bf4 can you have a look at it before it's merged? |
| @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ Gem::Specification.new do |s| | |||
| s.add_runtime_dependency "flay", [">= 2.0.1", "~> 2.1"] | |||
| s.add_runtime_dependency "churn", ["~> 0.0.35"] | |||
| s.add_runtime_dependency "flog", [">= 4.1.1", "~> 4.1"] | |||
| s.add_runtime_dependency "reek", [">= 1.3.4", "~> 1.3"] | |||
| s.add_runtime_dependency "reek", [">= 1.3.4", "< 2.2"] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated to 3.0, which makes more sense.
|
will do |
|
sorry, will do this weekend |
|
@bf4, ok to merge? |
|
looking at it now... |
Reek compatibility patches
|
Thanks! |
|
I'm here if you want to chat I just invited you to https://gitter.im/metricfu/metric_fu?utm_source=share-link&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=share-link |
|
Ok, that's what I thought. Should be good to merge, then. |
| smell_type: "Duplication", | ||
| lines: [6, 9]) | ||
| ] | ||
| @lines = double(smells: @smells) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
any reason we need to make the smells double and fill with with smell doubles? I'd rather use verified doubles if we're going to do that... not a blocker, but a followup PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That would be better yeah, I'll open a new PR for it.
|
Merged, i think this can become 4.12? |
|
Yup. You good with releasing it? |
|
Oh, ref: using flay #231 |
|
Yeah I'm good with releasing it. |
This contains the commits from and thus closes #255.