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.
9c39ead2d025bde14f3f39b20ff7d113?d=identicon&s=25 Kevin Rutherford (Guest)
on 2009-04-05 15:39
(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
5a837592409354297424994e8d62f722?d=identicon&s=25 Ryan Davis (Guest)
on 2009-04-07 08:24
(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.
9c39ead2d025bde14f3f39b20ff7d113?d=identicon&s=25 Kevin Rutherford (Guest)
on 2009-04-07 11:28
(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
5a837592409354297424994e8d62f722?d=identicon&s=25 Ryan Davis (Guest)
on 2009-04-08 11:04
(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.
9c39ead2d025bde14f3f39b20ff7d113?d=identicon&s=25 Kevin Rutherford (Guest)
on 2009-04-20 22:45
(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
5a837592409354297424994e8d62f722?d=identicon&s=25 Ryan Davis (Guest)
on 2009-04-20 23:01
(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.
5a837592409354297424994e8d62f722?d=identicon&s=25 Ryan Davis (Guest)
on 2009-04-21 17:47
(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.