-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
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
feat: Expand UnscopedFind
offenses in "graphql" namespaces
#30
Merged
smudge
merged 5 commits into
Betterment:main
from
willlockwood:lockwood/graphql-unscoped-find
Dec 18, 2023
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ad7cd91
feat: Expand `UnscopedFind` offenses in "graphql" namespaces
willlockwood d3660d2
Incorporate regex suggestion
willlockwood 8d76335
Add violation condition for when file path matches graphql pattern
willlockwood 43ec18a
Use `match?` instead of `match` in graphql regex match
willlockwood 91f62da
Use the intended rubocop node search
willlockwood 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 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 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
question: Just curious if we should match the string if it contains the
"graphql"
string anywhere even if it's a subset of some larger string?What if instead we used:
If we want to match
GraphQL
andGraphql
or similar, then we could add the/i
regexp modifier to make it case insensitive.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.
Mm interesting, so I had intentionally written it to be at least flexible enough to match
GraphQL
andGraphql
, thinking that I could easily imagine someone making the choice to downcase theQL
, and thinking that that decision didn't feel super relevant to me, as to whether this cop should still apply.Down to hear any other opinions on the question! Either way, I think the regex is a nicer touch (particularly with the word boundary) so I can switch to the case insensitive version and then see what others think?
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 should note that I think the odds of another string containing the subset
graphql
, but it being something else, is pretty low. It's more as a matter of practice that I try to match strings in a way that would be correct in more instances.I have seen production bugs caused by using
String#include?
where a stricter match wouldn't have.