-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 289
Extract helper module to detect repeated nodes #2155
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
Darhazer
wants to merge
1
commit into
master
Choose a base branch
from
extract-module-for-repeated-nodes
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ | ||
| # frozen_string_literal: true | ||
|
|
||
| module RuboCop | ||
| module Cop | ||
| module RSpec | ||
| # Helps find repeated items in a collection | ||
| # | ||
| # Provides a generic method to find repeated items by grouping them | ||
| # by a key and returning pairs of [item, repeated_lines] for items | ||
| # that appear more than once. | ||
| module RepeatedItems | ||
| # Groups items by key and returns only groups with more than one item | ||
| # | ||
| # @param items [Enumerable] the filtered collection to group | ||
| # @param key_proc [Proc] block returning the grouping key for each item | ||
| # @return [Array<Array>] array of groups containing more than one item | ||
| # that share the same key and there are multiple items in the group | ||
| def find_repeated_groups(items, key_proc:) | ||
| items | ||
| .group_by(&key_proc) | ||
| .values | ||
| .reject(&:one?) | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| # Maps a group of items to pairs of [item, repeated_lines] | ||
| # | ||
| # @param items [Array] array of items that share the same key | ||
| # @return [Array<Array>] array of [item, repeated_lines] pairs | ||
| def add_repeated_lines(items) | ||
| repeated_lines = items.map(&:first_line) | ||
| items.map { |item| [item, repeated_lines - [item.first_line]] } | ||
| end | ||
| end | ||
| end | ||
| end | ||
| end | ||
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just use a block instead of passing a Proc instance as an argument?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I actually found the code a bit confusing, when I tried rewriting it with an implicit block just now. If we do do that however, could we rename the block argument from
&blockto e.g.&signature_proc?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That makes sense.
Without keyword arguments to label things, it can be hard to tell what's going on from the caller’s side. In that case, the original way of passing a Proc via keyword arguments definitely has its perks. Alternatively, it might improve things somewhat to change the method name to something like
find_repeated_groups_by, which clearly implies that grouping logic is expected.Since both approaches seem to have their pros and cons, I felt that leaving it as it is would also be fine 👌