- I considered writing a cop for this, but it's not worth it:
there are no `[:test, :build]` occurrences in Core and this
Rust rule only applies in Core formulae.
- Some of these I bumped to `typed: strict`, some of them I added
intermediary type signatures to some of the methods to make my life
easier in the (near, hopefully) future.
- Turns out that RuboCop node matchers that end in `?`
can return `nil` if they don't match anything, not `false`.
- These can be either BlockNode, SendNode or AsgnNode,
which are all a type of Node.
- This causes errors in other places because we call
BlockNode or SendNode methods on a Node now. Still TODO.
Formulae, casks, and resources have a `#livecheckable?` method that
indicates whether they contain a `livecheck` block. This is intended
to be read as "has a livecheckable?", not "is livecheckable?" (as
livecheck can find versions for some packages/resources without a
`livecheck` block). Unfortunately, correct understanding of this
method's behavior [outside of documentation] relies on historical
knowledge that few people possess, so this is often confusing to
anyone who hasn't been working on livecheck since 2020.
In the olden days, a "livecheckable" was a Ruby file containing a
`livecheck` block (originally a hash) with a filename that
corresponded to a related formula. The `livecheck` blocks in
livecheckable files were integrated into their respective formulae in
August 2020, so [first-party] livecheckables ceased to exist at that
time. From that point forward, we simply referred to these as
`livecheck` blocks.
With that in mind, this clarifies the situation by replacing
"livecheckable" language. This includes renaming `#livecheckable?` to
`#livecheck_defined?`, replacing usage of "livecheckable" as a noun
with "`livecheck` block", replacing "livecheckable" as a boolean with
"livecheck_defined", and replacing incorrect usage of "livecheckable"
as an adjective with "checkable".
- Previously I thought that comments were fine to discourage people from
wasting their time trying to bump things that used `undef` that Sorbet
didn't support. But RuboCop is better at this since it'll complain if
the comments are unnecessary.
- Suggested in https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/pull/18018#issuecomment-2283369501.
- I've gone for a mixture of `rubocop:disable` for the files that can't
be `typed: strict` (use of undef, required before everything else, etc)
and `rubocop:todo` for everything else that should be tried to make
strictly typed. There's no functional difference between the two as
`rubocop:todo` is `rubocop:disable` with a different name.
- And I entirely disabled the cop for the docs/ directory since
`typed: strict` isn't going to gain us anything for some Markdown
linting config files.
- This means that now it's easier to track what needs to be done rather
than relying on checklists of files in our big Sorbet issue:
```shell
$ git grep 'typed: true # rubocop:todo Sorbet/StrictSigil' | wc -l
268
```
- And this is confirmed working for new files:
```shell
$ git status
On branch use-rubocop-for-sorbet-strict-sigils
Untracked files:
(use "git add <file>..." to include in what will be committed)
Library/Homebrew/bad.rb
Library/Homebrew/good.rb
nothing added to commit but untracked files present (use "git add" to track)
$ brew style
Offenses:
bad.rb:1:1: C: Sorbet/StrictSigil: Sorbet sigil should be at least strict got true.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1340 files inspected, 1 offense detected
```
- We discovered that the following syntax in the formula `sqlsmith`
should actually be OK because the `\n` is like whitespace.
```ruby
cmd = %W[
#{bin}/sqlsmith
--threads=4
--timeout=10
]
shell_output(cmd)
```
- I got bored doing them manually.
- Also now more people can help with letters of the alphabet using `brew style --only=FormulaAuditStrict/Text --fix homebrew/core`.
- This cop checks for the use of `FileUtils.rm_rf` and suggests using
`FileUtils.rm_r` because we should know if we couldn't delete a
thing for some reason, not just force it.
