Reworking OrcidValidator #4251
Merged
Reworking OrcidValidator #4251
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Earlier today, I was looking at Rubocop and doing some chores (see pull request #4250) to see if I could remove some exclusions and even update elements of Rubocop. I tried bumping `.rubocop.yml`'s `TargetRubyVersion` from `2.3` to `2.4`. I got a `Performance/RegexpMatch` violation, encouraging me to use `match?` instead of `match` and/or `=~`. I spent some time shifting from Regular Expressions to string matches (see PR #4250). That left one violation; The one that is fixed in this pull request. In addition to reworking to use `match?`, I reworked to be more explicit about what the original `match` method was intended for; Namely extracting an orcid from the given string.
jeremyf
force-pushed
the
reworking-orcid-methods
branch
from
eede02c
to
988a8e3
Compare
jcoyne
approved these changes
Feb 2, 2020
jeremyf
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 2, 2020
Given that Ruby 2.3 is past EOL, and 2.4 is approaching EOL, I'm bumping the targeted version to olded non-EOL ruby version. Note, Hyrax's gemspec already states that you must use Ruby 2.4 or greater. This should be a non-breaking change as the following PRs addressed the Rubocop violations: * #4250 (and associated SHAs) * 12bec9b * 571d3d6 * 9ce198c * #4251 (and associated SHA) * 988a8e3
no-reply
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 2, 2020
Given that Ruby 2.3 is past EOL, and 2.4 is approaching EOL, I'm bumping the targeted version to olded non-EOL ruby version. Note, Hyrax's gemspec already states that you must use Ruby 2.4 or greater. This should be a non-breaking change as the following PRs addressed the Rubocop violations: * #4250 (and associated SHAs) * 12bec9b * 571d3d6 * 9ce198c * #4251 (and associated SHA) * 988a8e3
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Earlier today, I was looking at Rubocop and doing some chores (see pull
request #4250) to see if I could remove some exclusions and even update
elements of Rubocop.
I tried bumping
.rubocop.yml'sTargetRubyVersionfrom2.3to2.4. I got aPerformance/RegexpMatchviolation, encouraging me touse
match?instead ofmatchand/or=~. I spent some time shiftingfrom Regular Expressions to string matches (see PR #4250).
That left one violation; The one that is fixed in this pull request.
In addition to reworking to use
match?, I reworked to be moreexplicit about what the original
matchmethod was intended for;Namely extracting an orcid from the given string.
@samvera/hyrax-code-reviewers