Forum: Ruby reek 1.0.0 released

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Kevin Rutherford (Guest)
on 2009-04-05 17:39
(Received via mailing list)
Hi,
Reek version 1.0.0 has been released!

Reek detects smells in Ruby code. It can be used as a stand-alone
command, or as a Rake task, or as an expectation in Rspec examples.

## Changes in this release:

### Major enhancements:

* Use *.reek files in source tree to configure Reek's behaviour
* Added -f option to configure report format
* --sort_order replaced by -f, -c and -s
* Matchers provided for rspec; eg. foo.should_not reek

### Minor enhancements:

* Smells in singleton methods are now analysed
* Uncommunicative parameter names in blocks now reported
* Modules and blocks now reflected in scope of smell reports

### Fixes:

* Corrected false reports of long arg lists to yield
* A method can now be a UtilityFunction only when it includes a call

## More information:

* http://wiki.github.com/kevinrutherford/reek
* http://reek.rubyforge.org/rdoc/

Cheers,
    Kevin
Ryan D. (Guest)
on 2009-04-07 10:24
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 5, 2009, at 06:37 , Kevin Rutherford wrote:

> Hi,
> Reek version 1.0.0 has been released!
>
> Reek detects smells in Ruby code. It can be used as a stand-alone
> command, or as a Rake task, or as an expectation in Rspec examples.

congrats!

You should test reek against ruby_parser and make sure it holds up for
you. You might want to look at my project gauntlet for that (see the
gauntlet plugin that ships with ruby_parser).

ParseTree is going to go away... you should prepare for that.
Kevin Rutherford (Guest)
on 2009-04-07 13:28
(Received via mailing list)
> You should test reek against ruby_parser and make sure it holds up for you.
> You might want to look at my project gauntlet for that (see the gauntlet
> plugin that ships with ruby_parser).
>
> ParseTree is going to go away... you should prepare for that.

Ok, thanks for the warning. Do you know when it will go away?
Cheers,
Kevin
Ryan D. (Guest)
on 2009-04-08 13:04
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 7, 2009, at 02:26 , Kevin Rutherford wrote:

>> You should test reek against ruby_parser and make sure it holds up
>> for you.
>> You might want to look at my project gauntlet for that (see the
>> gauntlet
>> plugin that ships with ruby_parser).
>>
>> ParseTree is going to go away... you should prepare for that.
>
> Ok, thanks for the warning. Do you know when it will go away?

Officially, it'll end of life when 1.8 does... when that is I have no
idea. That said, I've done NOTHING to check compatibility against
1.8.7 or the upcoming 1.8.8 and don't even have it on my radar right
now.
Kevin Rutherford (Guest)
on 2009-04-21 00:45
(Received via mailing list)
Hi Ryan,

> You should test reek against ruby_parser and make sure it holds up for you.
> You might want to look at my project gauntlet for that (see the gauntlet
> plugin that ships with ruby_parser).

ParseTree will create a parse tree for any object; right now, I can't
see how to do that with ruby_parser -- is it possible?
Thanks,
    Kevin
Ryan D. (Guest)
on 2009-04-21 01:01
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 20, 2009, at 13:45 , Kevin Rutherford wrote:

> ParseTree will create a parse tree for any object; right now, I can't
> see how to do that with ruby_parser -- is it possible?

nope.
Ryan D. (Guest)
on 2009-04-21 19:47
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 20, 2009, at 14:06 , Kevin Rutherford wrote:

>>> ParseTree will create a parse tree for any object; right now, I
>>> can't
>>> see how to do that with ruby_parser -- is it possible?
>>
>> nope.
>
> Is it planned?

nope. not possible in ruby 1.9.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.