Short notes from engineering

Micro-posts on programming and patterns as we build Tramline in public. Follow this feed if you find these bits interesting.

2023 / Jan 06 — 14:25
kitallis

I decided to add stricter linting to the codebase. Since I like what standard offers, I simply extended it with rails specific lints, in the following way:

require:
  - standard
  - rubocop-rails
  - rubocop-rspec
  - rubocop-performance

inherit_gem:
  standard: config/ruby-3.0.yml

AllCops:
  TargetRubyVersion: 3.1
  NewCops: enable
  Exclude:
    - bin/**/*
    - public/**/*
    - vendor/**/*
    - db/schema.rb

Rails:
  Enabled: true

RSpec:
  Enabled: true

RSpec/ExampleLength:
  Enabled: false

RSpec/MultipleExpectations:
  Max: 4

Performance:
  Enabled: true

This ensures standard is used for ruby things, and rails, rspec and some other performance related checks in addition to it via rubocop.

I came across this suggestion while fixing the 100 odd offenses it threw up,

RSpec/NamedSubject:
  Name your test subject if you need to reference it explicitly.

The fix,

subject(:run) { create(:releases_train_run) }

But what even is this? Isn't this just a let really? You can't really use the is_expected.to shortcut either since it's now named. I cannot possibly make the claim that this reads better.

I think it's just one of those annoying rspec maximalisms.