Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

SmallLintRule RBGuardingClauseRule and RBGuardClauseRule

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

3 messages Options

Nicolai Hess-3-2

SmallLintRule RBGuardingClauseRule and RBGuardClauseRule

We have to similar rules
RBGuardClauseRule and RBGuardingClauseRule

One is a ParseTreeLintRule, the other one is a TransformationRule.

I don't know why we have to at all.

One rule was "disabled" (or not chown) in the CriticsBrowser because it

was removed from the set of all rules before opening CriticsBrowser

(see method #allGoodRules).

In the past, monty fixed the class comment and #rational for class
RBGuardClauseRule to correctly explain what this rule is about.

This of course now differes from the similar rule RBGuardingClauseRule.

1. Why do we have both (ok, on can only select the rule violation, whereas the other on

does not select it but shows the possible transformation

2. why is the second one now in the set of all rules used by CriticsBrowser

3. what to do ? Remove one, fix the comment and #rational for the second one?

nicolai

Marcus Denker-4

Re: SmallLintRule RBGuardingClauseRule and RBGuardClauseRule

> On 05 Sep 2016, at 09:15, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> We have to similar rules
> RBGuardClauseRule and RBGuardingClauseRule
> One is a ParseTreeLintRule, the other one is a TransformationRule.
>
> I don't know why we have to at all.
> One rule was "disabled" (or not chown) in the CriticsBrowser because it
> was removed from the set of all rules before opening CriticsBrowser
> (see method #allGoodRules).
>
> In the past, monty fixed the class comment and #rational for class
> RBGuardClauseRule to correctly explain what this rule is about.
> This of course now differes from the similar rule RBGuardingClauseRule.
>
> 1. Why do we have both (ok, on can only select the rule violation, whereas the other on
> does not select it but shows the possible transformation
> 2. why is the second one now in the set of all rules used by CriticsBrowser
> 3. what to do ? Remove one, fix the comment and #rational for the second one?
>

Yes, we should clean up… I would remove one.

Marcus

Uko2

Re: SmallLintRule RBGuardingClauseRule and RBGuardClauseRule

Hi, I’m moving rules anyway. I will just remove those two and create one that highlights code and transforms.

Uko

On 07 Sep 2016, at 10:33, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 05 Sep 2016, at 09:15, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote:

We have to similar rules
RBGuardClauseRule and RBGuardingClauseRule
One is a ParseTreeLintRule, the other one is a TransformationRule.

I don't know why we have to at all.
One rule was "disabled" (or not chown) in the CriticsBrowser because it
was removed from the set of all rules before opening CriticsBrowser
(see method #allGoodRules).

In the past, monty fixed the class comment and #rational for class
RBGuardClauseRule to correctly explain what this rule is about.
This of course now differes from the similar rule RBGuardingClauseRule.

1. Why do we have both (ok, on can only select the rule violation, whereas the other on
does not select it but shows the possible transformation
2. why is the second one now in the set of all rules used by CriticsBrowser
3. what to do ? Remove one, fix the comment and #rational for the second one?

Yes, we should clean up… I would remove one.

Marcus