Disable Length checks

[gdiggs]

We never follow them, and always have to merge around them

@codeclimate/review

[wfleming]

I think always is an overly strong statement: I can think of many times we've taken the time to refactor due to long method issues: normally when we ignore them it's because the method is a giant hash of attrs to get passed elsewhere.

Personally, I also think the long class issues are helpful as a warning of "hey, this class might be getting out of hand.".

[ABaldwinHunter]

Maybe this one is useful? I think I've refactored in some cases when a CC found a method length issue.

I agree there are certain methods we are always fine having long - e.g. with a hash or a run method - but we can disable rubocop on the method inline in those cases.

WDYT?

[pbrisbin]

I (basically) agree with @wfleming. Yes there are false-positives that we often merge around (mostly because of the Hash-happiness of Mongo), but I like seeing the issues come up and choosing when/if to do that. I also like seeing when a class gets "Long" and deciding to deal with it now or defer (but not ignore the issue).

[maxjacobson]

We should make gates 😄

[gdiggs]

This went about as I expected! Closing.