Cop idea: [Factory girl] Enforce consistent usage of parentheses in factory girl methods

[Darhazer]

trafficstars

I'm working on a code base where I have both styles of using factory: create(:user, name: 'John') and create :user, name: 'John; it will be good if one of those styles is required.

Note: parentheses may be required in nested associations no matter the style, like in: create :account, user: create(:user, name 'John')

[andyw8]

I feel this is more general style choice of whether method calls should use parentheses or not. Perhaps it would be better to be have this in RuboCop itself?

[Darhazer]

IMO it's OK to have different method call style for different DSLs. Syle/MethodCallWithArgsParentheses looks for such, but we disable it in the specs, as I can't imagine writting it('some description') or even allow(Foo).to(receive(:bar))

[Drowze]

I would love a cop enforcing this. There is usually no standard when regarding factorybot DSL

[pirj]

I think this rule applies to FactoryGirl.

So if there's no such cop in RuboCop itself (couldn't find one quickly), it might be a good idea to implement it there.

[dgollahon]

I don't know if the rule accounts for this at all, but I usually use parentheses with a "dsl" unless it's in a class context / macro. So, for the validates example, I usually write it as the guide recommends, but for almost all the rspec methods that aren't describe, context, it, or to, for instance, i typically use parentheses. Like @Darhazer is saying, I don't think a universal rule necessarily matches all DSLs.

Personally, I always write factories with parentheses and that seems like the better default to me (disclaimer: i'm trending towards more parens in most places), but this could easily be configurable and I expect it will be somewhat controversial either way.

[vmakoed]

Any update with this?

[pirj]

@vmakoed Pull request is always welcome!

I guess this cop should have a style option whether to set parantheses or not.