Style/IfWithBooleanLiteralBranches: multiple branches readability

[BuonOmo]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

The below method would in my opinion loose in readability if it were corrected by rubocop:

      def contains?(rhs, opts = {})
        if Feature::Geometry === rhs
          contains?(BoundingBox.new(@factory).add(rhs))
        elsif rhs.empty?
          true
        elsif empty?
          false
        elsif @min_x > rhs.min_x || @max_x < rhs.max_x || @min_y > rhs.min_y || @max_y < rhs.max_y
          false
        elsif @has_m && rhs.has_m && !opts[:ignore_m] && (@min_m > rhs.min_m || @max_m < rhs.max_m)
          false
        elsif @has_z && rhs.has_z && !opts[:ignore_z] && (@min_z > rhs.min_z || @max_z < rhs.max_z)
          false
        else
          true
        end
      end

source

The branching helps understanding clearly which result is expected for which conditions. And in the doc examples we can see that it is well suited for simple if-else cases.

Describe the solution you'd like

Having an option that allows for multiple branches to stay as it is:

Style/IfWithBooleanLiteralBranches:
  Enabled: true
  MultipleBranches: false

Describe alternatives you've considered

disabling the rule, but this would make me miss the simple if-else which are to be removed.

[koic]

I'm the author of this cop. TBH, I didn't consider this case when I made this. So, I think it's good to allow when multiple elsifs are used instead of the new option. OTOH, if there is only single elsif, elsif will not exist due to autocorrection. So I think the current behavior can be kept. I've opened #11007.