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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Support strict keyword argument matching #554
Support strict keyword argument matching #554
Changes from all commits
ddd44a6
b4ef8fb
a6bb15b
1eac886
fa386ba
90eb7f0
8f85739
f2c9b6f
76337bf
ad557cb
e1b135a
29dee3c
2646744
37ccbae
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Open to a better name. Note that naming this
Hash
caused some constant lookup failures due to namespacing e.g. inHasEntry#parse_option
, so I thought it'd be safer to name this something else (instead of checking and changing allHash
es in the codebase to explicit reference the top-levelHash
).Also, should this be
# @private
?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.
That makes sense to me and I can't immediately think of a better name. 👍
Yes, I think the whole class could be marked as private for documentation purposes since I think it's only used internally. That way you could remove the method-level YARD annotations.
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'd actually prefer that we don't couple to
ruby2_keywords
here, but couldn't think of a significantly better alternative yet:has_value
will still do "loose matching"). A fair amount of matching logic also relies on iterating and shifting an array of params (e.g.any_parameters
).Would suggest to revisit if/when we can turn on strict keyword matching by default.
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.
Sorry, my brain's a bit fried - what are the downsides of coupling to
ruby2_keywords
?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.
Mainly this statement:
I'd expect that it wouldn't be removed till Ruby 2 is end-of-life, but it still gives me a bit of pause, and would be nice if we could limit it to the "edges" of the code (i.e. invocation / expectation)