Fix ProcessedSource#commented? for multi-line ranges. Add ProcessedSource#commented_line?
#55
Conversation
marcandre
force-pushed
the
comment
branch
2 times, most recently
from
86bf60c
to
e3f08dc
Compare
lib/rubocop/ast/processed_source.rb
Outdated
| @@ -95,8 +95,16 @@ def blank? | |||
| ast.nil? | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| # @return [Boolean] if the given line number has a comment. | |||
| def commented_line?(line) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the name is a bit misleading (it sounds like a line that was commented out), but it's a good change. I guess you just tried to mimic the commented? name we've employed before. Perhaps it should have been something like contains_comments? or whatever.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, I should have thought of a better name, especially that util.rb in rubocop has comment_line? which is true only for full lines.
So which is best: contains_comment?, or line_with_comment?.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can make a method contains_comment? that acts differently on line numbers and source ranges. 😉 If not - I'd go with line_with_comment?, as I suggested contains_comment? as an alternative name for commented?.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated with line_with_comment? and contains_comment? (with deprecated alias commented?)
marcandre
force-pushed
the
comment
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d31430f
to
dc52ee7
Compare
…dSource#commented_line?`
ProcessedSource#commented?was only considering the beginning line of the given range