Fix a false positive for Layout/ClosingParenthesisIndentation

[antonzaytsev]

This PR fixes a false negative for Layout/ClosingParenthesisIndentation when first argument is multiline.

The following is a reproduction step.

% rubocop -V
0.59.2 (using Parser 2.5.1.2, running on ruby 2.5.0 x86_64-darwin17)

% cat app/models/users.rb
class User < ApplicationRecord
  def self.complex_find
    where(
      "users.approved_at < ? OR
       users.approved_at IS NULL", 3.days.ago
    )
  end
end

% rubocop app/models/users.rb --only Layout/ClosingParenthesisIndentation -d
or /Users/anton/code/rubocop: configuration from /Users/anton/code/rubocop/.rubocop.yml
configuration from /Users/anton/.rbenv/versions/2.5.0/lib/ruby/gems/2.5.0/gems/rubocop-rspec-1.29.1/config/default.yml
configuration from /Users/anton/.rbenv/versions/2.5.0/lib/ruby/gems/2.5.0/gems/rubocop-rspec-1.29.1/config/default.yml
Default configuration from /Users/anton/code/rubocop/config/default.yml
Inheriting configuration from /Users/anton/code/rubocop/.rubocop_todo.yml
Inspecting 1 file
Scanning /Users/anton/code/rubocop/users.rb
C

Offenses:

users.rb:6:5: C: Layout/ClosingParenthesisIndentation: Indent ) to column 5 (not 4)
    )
    ^

1 file inspected, 1 offense detected
Finished in 0.5669199999974808 seconds

---

Before submitting the PR make sure the following are checked:

• Wrote good commit messages.
• Commit message starts with [Fix #issue-number] (if the related issue exists).
• Feature branch is up-to-date with master (if not - rebase it).
• Squashed related commits together.
• Added tests.
• Added an entry to the Changelog if the new code introduces user-observable changes. See changelog entry format.
• The PR relates to only one subject with a clear title
  and description in grammatically correct, complete sentences.
• Run rake default. It executes all tests and RuboCop for itself, and generates the documentation.

[rrosenblum]

Isn't this fixing a false positive?

[antonzaytsev]

@rrosenblum good questions actually. Do you have example handy?

[rrosenblum]

I don't have a specific example. In general, I tend to think of a false positive as code that generates an offense when it should not. A false negative is when code doesn't produce an offense, but it should.

[antonzaytsev]

@rrosenblum you're right, it is a fix for false positive. Thanks!

[Drenmi]

⛵️

[cgriego]

I've also run into an issue where the following code did not report an offense in 0.55 but does now. I'm not sure if this will fix it, but seems likely?

  foo = foo.bar(<<-SQL
    CODE HERE
    SQL
  )

[bbatsov]

The changes look good, but your branch has to be rebased on top of the current master branch due to merge conflicts.

[antonzaytsev]

@bbatsov rebased, conflict solved.

[cgriego]

The conflict was fixed in October but since nothing happened afterward, there’s another conflict.

[bbatsov]

@antonzaytsev @cgriego Since we have some releases since then the entry also has to be moved where it belongs.

I'm sorry for the slow turn-around, but I can't always keep up with everything here. In such cases (when it's clear that a PR is a goon shape and it has been vetted by Core Team members) it'd be best if the other @rubocop-hq/rubocop-core members merge the PRs after they've been approved, to avoid the constant rebases and merge delays caused by my lack of bandwidth.

[antonzaytsev]

@cgriego @bbatsov I rebased with latest master and move record in changelog up into master section.

[Drenmi]

Thank you, @antonzaytsev! 🙇