Sha256: a428a7cf15efeaeadbd5850919dcf277fde8deea19fb62023c975b782d3d2a4d
Contents?: true
Size: 1.88 KB
Versions: 73
Compression:
Stored size: 1.88 KB
Contents
# frozen_string_literal: true
module RuboCop
module Cop
module Performance
# Identifies uses of `Range#include?` and `Range#member?`, which iterates over each
# item in a `Range` to see if a specified item is there. In contrast,
# `Range#cover?` simply compares the target item with the beginning and
# end points of the `Range`. In a great majority of cases, this is what
# is wanted.
#
# @safety
# This cop is unsafe because `Range#include?` (or `Range#member?`) and `Range#cover?`
# are not equivalent behavior.
# Example of a case where `Range#cover?` may not provide the desired result:
#
# [source,ruby]
# ----
# ('a'..'z').cover?('yellow') # => true
# ----
#
# @example
# # bad
# ('a'..'z').include?('b') # => true
# ('a'..'z').member?('b') # => true
#
# # good
# ('a'..'z').cover?('b') # => true
class RangeInclude < Base
extend AutoCorrector
MSG = 'Use `Range#cover?` instead of `Range#%<bad_method>s`.'
RESTRICT_ON_SEND = %i[include? member?].freeze
# TODO: If we traced out assignments of variables to their uses, we
# might pick up on a few more instances of this issue
# Right now, we only detect direct calls on a Range literal
# (We don't even catch it if the Range is in double parens)
def_node_matcher :range_include, <<~PATTERN
(send {irange erange (begin {irange erange})} ${:include? :member?} ...)
PATTERN
def on_send(node)
range_include(node) do |bad_method|
message = format(MSG, bad_method: bad_method)
add_offense(node.loc.selector, message: message) do |corrector|
corrector.replace(node.loc.selector, 'cover?')
end
end
end
end
end
end
end
Version data entries
73 entries across 73 versions & 2 rubygems