Jens Dahl Møllerhøj

Yeah. I could complicate things by trying to check for duplicates here, and disable auto correction in that case? Though it seems quite pedantic, and could lead to less clear...

> Both should be remain for duplicate defined methods. So, I think it can make a design that compatible behavior. Can you add the above test case and for the...

@pirj I feel like this one is good to go now?

> I'd love to see a spec that shows how it behaves: > > * when non-resourceful methods are present in the controller Do you mean spec/rubocop/cop/rails/action_order_spec.rb:70 > * when...

> I personally don't mind turning this cop on by default (set it to `pending` now, and we'll flip it to `enabled` on a major release) - that's the reason...

This PR for merge is ready AFAIK.

@koic @pirj thanks for the pings. This should be good now?

Done: https://github.com/rubocop/rails-style-guide/issues/289

All I need is a go from a core member that the cop would be merged, and I'll make a PR😊

> confirm Huh? Can you elaborate? I've never seen a "confirm" method in a controller? I'd suggest only ignoring private methods - I hope to influence people to only use...