Reek 2 - what would you like to see in it?

[troessner]

Hey guys!

What do you think about going for a release of "reek 2"?

I'm neither talking about the "2" in a semantic versioning kind of way nor about some great change in the future that would require a big version leap.
I'm more thinking of the 2 in the sense of release number, kind of a set of common goals we can all work towards in the near future until we say: "Yes, that's a 2, let's release it like that!".

I have a couple of things on my mind I'd like to see in there:

• Making it easier to use reeks rspec matcher in your tests. I know that there is https://github.com/troessner/reek/wiki#integration but the "include ...." just feels weird. It should be just a

require 'reek/spec'

or maybe even a separate gem?

• Fixing bad bugs like: Class methods defined via the "class << self; end" syntax trigger UtilityFunction #112
• Make reek work properly with rails
• Make reek less smelly. Of course it's easy to be overzealous here but we do have quite a few warnings we should fix.

What do you guys think? Does the "2" release make sense to you? If yes, what would you like to see in it?

[mvz]

Yes, it's a good idea to have such a release to work toward. It'll give us a chance to rethink some things that would be too big a change in the regular release series.

I'd like to include improved configuration options in this release:

• Specifying which files to include/exclude
• Specifying default command line options

As mentioned in #305, this also gives us a chance to think again about the default command line options.

Other things to consider, but these are more tentative:

• Use parser to parse the files (but we should run some benchmarks!)?
• Improve programmatic use of Reek, so projects like metric_fu don't need to use the CLI.

[troessner]

Improve programmatic use of Reek, so projects like metric_fu don't need to use the CLI.

Excellent idea!

[mvz]

I'd like #313 to be fixed for release 2. The YAML format probably shouldn't change in a minor release.

[troessner]

I'd like #313 to be fixed for release 2. The YAML format probably shouldn't change in a minor release.

Makes sense. I'll add this: #314 to the mix..:)

[guilhermesimoes]

Regarding this:

Improve programmatic use of Reek, so projects like metric_fu don't need to use the CLI.

This is all I had to do to update from Reek 1.3.8 to 1.6.0. It got a little more complicated to provide a default configuration file to Reek but other than that, it was easy.

For me though, it would be cool if Reek and RuboCop and all these other static analysis libraries accepted ASTs (instead of filenames or the actual source code). That way code analysis would be much faster given that you could parse a file just once and then feed its AST into each of your desired libraries. But maybe that's just a pipe dream.

[mvz]

@guilhermesimoes that is indeed remarkably simple.

It should not be too difficult to feed an AST to reek, since it uses a pretty linear process from source, to AST, to 'decorated' AST, which is then fed to the smell detectors.

[troessner]

@mvz @chastell @gilles-leblanc let's make a list of what we still consider necessary for a release 2.0.

In my mind only those two:

• Re-visit reek task #326
• Support Ruby 2.2 #357

And then I'd say let's release it. I'd then try to get this announced in the ruby newsletter as well.:)

What's your take on that?

[chastell]

👍 – commented on the Rake-task-related issue. Sorry, a bit too busy at the moment to do it all properly. a baby screams in the background

[troessner]

Noise-cancelling headphones @chastell ? :D
Btw I'm expecting my daughter to arrive on this planet the next days, what a coincidence..;)

[gilles-leblanc]

Congratulations! But if it's your first I suggest passing on the noise
canceling headphones ;)
On Dec 30, 2014 2:33 PM, "Timo Rößner" notifications@github.com wrote:

Noise-cancelling headphones @chastell https://github.com/chastell ? :D
Btw I'm expecting my daughter to arrive on this planet the next days, what
a coincidence..;)

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

[troessner]

Thanks @gilles-leblanc !
I'd like to revise my suggestion from above: lets go with 2-release after we revamped our rake task since we dont know when the unparser issue will be solved.

[troessner]

Closing this issue since we're continuing our discussion in #365