Lots of RuboCop offenses about dry-validation

[solnic]

Hey, yes I'd accept a PR that fixes the issues with the exception of .() calls, I love it and I want to make it more popular, esp. that you can attach some extra meaning to it, ie. such calls could mean a side-effect-less call that is functional. I hope @AMHOL can get used to it? 😂

[zacholauson]

Awesome. I like the .() call syntax as well. I haven't seen it used very much so its cool to see it used so consistently in this project.

I'll start working through the offenses and post back if I have any questions about desired code style.

Thanks!

[zacholauson]

@solnic / @AMHOL, I opened a work in progress pull request as I work through the offenses. Initially I disabled the inspection that prefers .call() over .(), but we could also change this inspection to enforce .() over .call(). What would you guys prefer?

[solnic]

I'd say we should simply disable this check
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 at 20:05, Zach Olauson [email protected] wrote:

@solnic https://github.com/solnic, I opened a work in progress pull
request as I work through the offenses. Initially I disabled the inspection
that prefers .call() over .(), but we could also change this inspection
to enforce .() over .call(). What would you prefer?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#33 (comment)
.

[zacholauson]

Sounds good. Thanks @solnic

[AMHOL]

@solnic @zacholauson I can live with it lol

[zacholauson]

Hey guys, just as an update. I've been home visiting family so I haven't been working on this much. I plan to continue to work on it this weekend, I have about 10 offenses left.

[solnic]

No worries man :) BTW a lot of code has been moved to dry-logic.