[Fix #8506] Add AllowedParentClasses config to Lint/MissingSuper.

[iMacTia]

Add AllowedParentClasses config to Lint/MissingSuper.

The default value of %w[BasicObject Object] is kept for backwards compatibility, but users can now add to that list using the AllowedParentClasses config value.

It's important to note that the value of AllowedParentClasses will be ADDED to the default value.
This is because I don't foresee scenarios where users would want to remove BasicObject or Object from this list, and removes the requirement for always specifying them.
I'm open to feedback on this assumption and happy to change it into a full replacement, I simply went with the most logical approach in my opinion.

---

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.

[Drenmi]

Change looks good, but perhaps we can generalize the setting name to divorce it from one particular reason for ignoring a node. E.g. ExcludedParentClasses or similar? 🙂

[bbatsov]

Agreed - the name should be more generic. Also this settings needs to be documented and some example usages should be added to the docs.

[iMacTia]

Change looks good, but perhaps we can generalize the setting name

That makes sense, ExcludedParentClasses conveys the intent rather than the reason, I'll change it to that 👍

Also this settings needs to be documented and some example usages should be added to the docs

I wasn't sure about this, I'll add something. Thanks for pointing it out

[iMacTia]

Updated and force-pushed to keep the commit history clean.
@Drenmi @bbatsov this should now be ready for a second pass 👍

[koic]

This document and examples are auto-generated based on the source code. Please update lib/rubocop/cop/lint/missing_super.rb directly.
There's no need to update the docs/modules/ROOT/pages/cops_lint.adoc doc as it will be generated at the time of release.

[iMacTia]

Thank you @koic, I've amended the commit to keep the history clean.
I hope I did it right 😄

[koic]

Looks good to me 👍

[bbatsov]

I think this should be named AllowedParentClasses to be in-line with how we typically name stuff. /cc @koic

[koic]

I agree the new suggested name :-)

[bbatsov]

excluded from -> allowed by

[bbatsov]

Other than my remark about the naming the changes look good as well. I'll merge the PR once the name is updated.

[iMacTia]

Thank you @bbatsov, the new suggested name makes sense.
I've updated the branch (amended to keep commit history clean), as well as the PR title and description

[koic]

The example ClassWithNoParent class is irrelevant to the AllowedParentClasses configuration and is always allowed, so it looks better to put it in the # good case of @example, right?

[iMacTia]

Of course, I can move it there, but I wanted to make it absolutely clear that no matter what the value of AllowedParentClasses is, Object and BasicObject will always be allowed, so this example is just to remark that one more time in case the reader misses it from the description above. Although it can technically go in both places, I feel like it's more useful here. WDYT?

[koic]

Yeah, I understand the intention. But @example ConfigurationName is typically used to describe unique behaviors of ConfigurationName. For the sake of consistent documentation structure, it would be better to move this to @example I think :-)

[iMacTia]

Can't really argue with that, I understand the value of consistency 🙂
I'll move this up as suggested 👍

[iMacTia]

I've got a "rubocop server is not running" error while running specs on 2.7, but that might just be a flaky?
I can't re-run the test though, so I'll need your help 🙏

[koic]

Yeah, I have rerun the CI matrix contains flaky spec. Thank you.