foodcritic 15.0.0 → 15.1.0

data/Rakefile

@@ -1,73 +0,0 @@
-require "bundler/setup"
-require "mixlib/shellout"
-
-require "bundler/gem_tasks"
-
-require "rspec/core/rake_task"
-RSpec::Core::RakeTask.new(:spec, :tag) do |t, args|
-  t.rspec_opts = [].tap do |a|
-    a << "--color"
-    a << "--format #{ENV['CI'] ? 'documentation' : 'Fuubar'}"
-    a << "--backtrace" if ENV["DEBUG"]
-    a << "--seed #{ENV['SEED']}" if ENV["SEED"]
-    a << "--tag ~regression" unless ENV["CI"] || args[:tag].to_s =~ /regression/
-    a << "--tag #{args[:tag]}" if args[:tag]
-  end.join(" ")
-end
-
-require "cucumber"
-require "cucumber/rake/task"
-Cucumber::Rake::Task.new(:features) do |t|
-  t.cucumber_opts = %w{--strict}
-  t.cucumber_opts += %w{-f progress} unless ENV["CI"]
-  unless ENV.key?("FC_FORK_PROCESS") && ENV["FC_FORK_PROCESS"] == "true"
-    t.cucumber_opts += ["-t", "~@build"]
-    t.cucumber_opts += ["-t", "~@context"]
-  end
-  t.cucumber_opts += ["features"]
-end
-
-require "chefstyle"
-require "rubocop/rake_task"
-desc "Run Chefstyle (rubocop)"
-RuboCop::RakeTask.new do |task|
-  task.options << "--display-cop-names"
-end
-
-desc "Build the manpage"
-task(:man) do
-  sh "ronn -w --roff man/*.ronn"
-end
-
-task default: [:man, :test, :rubocop]
-
-desc "Run all tests"
-task test: [:spec, :features]
-
-desc "Regenerate regression test data"
-task :regen_regression do
-  in_path = File.expand_path("../spec/regression/cookbooks.txt", __FILE__)
-  cookbooks = IO.readlines(in_path)
-  cookbooks.each_with_index do |line, i|
-    name, ref = line.strip.split(":")
-    puts "Regenerating output for #{name} (#{i + 1}/#{cookbooks.size})"
-    Dir.mktmpdir do |temp|
-      clone_cmd = Mixlib::ShellOut.new("git", "clone", "https://github.com/chef-cookbooks/#{name}.git", ".", cwd: temp)
-      clone_cmd.run_command
-      clone_cmd.error!
-      checkout_cmd = Mixlib::ShellOut.new("git", "checkout", ref, cwd: temp)
-      checkout_cmd.run_command
-      checkout_cmd.error!
-      fc_cmd = Mixlib::ShellOut.new("#{File.expand_path("../bin/foodcritic", __FILE__)} --tags any --no-progress .", cwd: temp)
-      fc_cmd.run_command
-      out_path = File.expand_path("../spec/regression/expected/#{name}.txt", __FILE__)
-      IO.write(out_path, fc_cmd.stdout)
-    end
-  end
-end
-
-desc "Run one regression test (or all of them)"
-task :regression, [:cookbook] do |t, args|
-  tag = args[:cookbook] ? "regression_#{args[:cookbook]}" : "regression"
-  Rake::Task["spec"].invoke(tag)
-end

data/features/002_check_string_interpolation.feature

@@ -1,50 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check String Interpolation
-
-  In order to make my cookbooks more readable
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify if values are unnecessarily interpolated
-
-  Scenario: Resource name interpolated string (symbol)
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that creates a directory resource with an interpolated name
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the string interpolation warning 002 should be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Resource name interpolated string
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that creates a directory resource with an interpolated name from a string
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the string interpolation warning 002 should be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Resource name string literal
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that creates a directory resource with a string literal
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the string interpolation warning 002 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Resource name compound expression
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that creates a directory resource with a compound expression
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the string interpolation warning 002 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Resource name literal and interpolated
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that creates a directory resource with a literal and interpolated variable
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the string interpolation warning 002 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Resource name interpolated and literal
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that creates a directory resource with an interpolated variable and a literal
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the string interpolation warning 002 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: String interpolation in first Hash key
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe for which the first hash key is an interpolated string
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the string interpolation warning 002 should be displayed
-
-  Scenario: String interpolation in first Hash value
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe for which the first hash value is an interpolated string
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the string interpolation warning 002 should be displayed
-
-  Scenario: String interpolation in heredoc
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that logs an interpolated string heredoc
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the string interpolation warning 002 should not be displayed

data/features/005_check_for_resource_repetition.feature

@@ -1,64 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for resource repetition
-
-  In order to write my recipe without being needlessly verbose
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify resources that vary minimally so I can reduce copy and paste
-
-  Scenario: Package resource varying only a single attribute
-    Given a cookbook recipe that declares multiple resources varying only in the package name
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the service resource warning 005 should be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Package resource varying only a single attribute for a small number of resources
-    Given a cookbook recipe that declares two or fewer resources varying only in the package name
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the service resource warning 005 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Package resource varying multiple attributes
-    Given a cookbook recipe that declares multiple resources with more variation
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the service resource warning 005 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Non-varying packages mixed with other resources
-    Given a cookbook recipe that declares multiple package resources mixed with other resources
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the service resource warning 005 should be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Non-contiguous packages mixed with other resources
-    Given a cookbook recipe that declares non contiguous package resources mixed with other resources
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the service resource warning 005 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Execute resources branching
-    Given a cookbook recipe that declares execute resources varying only in the command in branching conditionals
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the service resource warning 005 should not be visible
-
-  Scenario: Execute resources branching - too many
-    Given a cookbook recipe that declares too many execute resources varying only in the command in branching conditionals
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the service resource warning 005 should be visible
-
-  Scenario: Execute resources branching in provider actions
-    Given a cookbook provider that declares execute resources varying only in the command in separate actions
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the service resource warning 005 should not be shown
-
-  Scenario: Execute resources in the same provider action
-    Given a cookbook provider that declares execute resources varying only in the command in the same action
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the service resource warning 005 should be shown
-
-  Scenario Outline: Template resources within a block
-    Given a cookbook recipe that declares multiple <type> template resources within a block
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the service resource warning 005 should <show> against the first resource in the block
-  Examples:
-    | type        | show             |
-    | varying     | not be displayed |
-    | non-varying | be displayed     |
-
-  Scenario: Directories with different file modes
-    Given a cookbook recipe that declares multiple directories with different file modes
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the service resource warning 005 should not be displayed

data/features/006_check_file_mode.feature

@@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check file mode
-
-  In order to ensure that file and directory permissions are applied correctly
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify where the mode may not be interpreted as expected
-
-  Scenario Outline: Specifying file mode
-    Given a <resource> resource declared with the mode <mode>
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the warning 006 should be <shown_where_invalid>
-
-    Examples:
-      | resource      | mode   | shown_where_invalid |
-      | cookbook_file |  "644" |   valid             |
-      | cookbook_file |   644  | invalid             |
-      | cookbook_file | 00644  |   valid             |
-      | directory     |   755  | invalid             |
-      | directory     |  "755" |   valid             |
-      | directory     |  0644  |   valid             |
-      | directory     | "0644" |   valid             |
-      | directory     |   400  | invalid             |
-      | directory     | 00400  |   valid             |
-      | file          |  "755" |   valid             |
-      | file          |   755  | invalid             |
-      | file          |   644  | invalid             |
-      | file          |   044  | invalid             |
-      | file          | "0644" |   valid             |
-      | file          | ary[1] |   valid             |
-      | template      |  00400 |   valid             |
-      | template      |   400  | invalid             |
-      | template      |  "400" |   valid             |
-
-  Scenario: Unspecified mode
-    Given a file resource declared without a mode
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the warning 006 should not be displayed

data/features/009_check_for_unrecognised_resource_attributes.feature

@@ -1,55 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for unrecognised resource attributes
-
-  In order to identify typos in recipes without the need for a converge
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify use of standard resources with unrecognised attributes
-
-  Scenario Outline: Unrecognised attribute declared on built-in resource
-    Given a recipe that declares a <type> resource with these attributes: <attributes>
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the unrecognised attribute warning 009 should be <shown>
-  Examples:
-    | type    | attributes                  | shown |
-    | file    | punter,group,mode,action    | true  |
-    | file    | owner,group,rights,action   | false |
-    | file    | owner,group,mode,action     | false |
-    | file    | action,retries              | false |
-    | group   | gid                         | false |
-    | group   | gid,membranes               | true  |
-    | package | version,action,options      | false |
-    | package | verison,action,options      | true  |
-
-  Scenario: Resource declared using recognised attributes
-    Given a recipe that declares a resource with standard attributes
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the unrecognised attribute warning 009 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: LWRP Resource
-    Given a recipe that declares a user-defined resource
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the unrecognised attribute warning 009 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Resource declared with only a name attribute
-    Given a recipe that declares a resource with only a name attribute
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the unrecognised attribute warning 009 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Unrecognised attribute on recipe with multiple resources of the same type
-    Given a recipe that declares multiple resources of the same type of which one has a bad attribute
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the unrecognised attribute warning 009 should be displayed against the correct resource
-
-  Scenario: Resource with conditional attributes
-    Given a recipe that declares a resource with recognised attributes and a conditional execution ruby block
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the unrecognised attribute warning 009 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Resource with nested block
-    Given a recipe that declares a resource with recognised attributes and a nested block
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the unrecognised attribute warning 009 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Resource with attribute method call
-    Given a recipe that declares a resource with an attribute value set to the result of a method call
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the unrecognised attribute warning 009 should not be displayed

data/features/014_check_for_long_ruby_blocks.feature

@@ -1,30 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for overly long ruby blocks
-
-  In order to keep my cookbooks readable
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify if ruby blocks in my recipes are too long and should be extracted to libraries
-
-  Scenario: No ruby blocks
-    Given a cookbook that contains no ruby blocks
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the long ruby block warning 014 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Short ruby block
-    Given a cookbook that contains a short ruby block
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the long ruby block warning 014 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Long ruby block
-    Given a cookbook that contains a long ruby block
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the long ruby block warning 014 should be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Multiple ruby blocks
-    Given a recipe that contains both long and short ruby blocks
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the long ruby block warning 014 should be displayed against the long block only
-
-  Scenario: Missing block attribute
-    Given a recipe that contains a ruby block without a block attribute
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the long ruby block warning 014 should not be displayed

data/features/018_check_for_old_lwrp_notification_syntax.feature

@@ -1,25 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for use of deprecated LWRP notification syntax
-
-  In order to ensure LWRP notifications continue to work
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify when a LWRP notification uses the deprecated syntax
-
-  Scenario: LWRP with no notifications
-    Given a cookbook that contains a LWRP that does not trigger notifications
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the LWRP uses deprecated notification syntax warning 018 should not be displayed against the provider file
-
-  Scenario: LWRP with deprecated notification syntax
-    Given a cookbook that contains a LWRP that uses the deprecated notification syntax
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the LWRP uses deprecated notification syntax warning 018 should be displayed against the provider file
-
-  Scenario: LWRP with deprecated notification syntax (class variable)
-    Given a cookbook that contains a LWRP that uses the deprecated notification syntax with a class variable
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the LWRP uses deprecated notification syntax warning 018 should be displayed against the provider file
-
-  Scenario: LWRP with current notification syntax
-    Given a cookbook that contains a LWRP that uses the current notification syntax
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the LWRP uses deprecated notification syntax warning 018 should not be displayed against the provider file

data/features/019_check_for_consistent_node_access.feature

@@ -1,108 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for consistency in node access
-
-  In order to be consistent in the way I access node attributes
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify if the same cookbook uses varying approaches to accessing node attributes
-
-  Scenario Outline: Retrieve node attributes
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that <accesses><nested> node attributes via <read_access_type>
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the attribute consistency warning 019 should be <show_warning>
-
-    Examples:
-      | accesses | read_access_type | nested | show_warning |
-      | ignores  | none             |        | not shown    |
-      | reads    | symbols          |        | not shown    |
-      | reads    | strings          |        | not shown    |
-      | reads    | vivified         |        | not shown    |
-      | reads    | strings,symbols  |        | shown        |
-      | reads    | strings,vivified |        | shown        |
-      | reads    | symbols,strings  | nested | shown        |
-      | reads    | symbols,vivified |        | shown        |
-      | reads    | vivified,strings |        | shown        |
-      | reads    | vivified,symbols |        | shown        |
-      | updates  | symbols          |        | not shown    |
-      | updates  | strings          | nested | not shown    |
-      | updates  | vivified         |        | not shown    |
-      | updates  | strings,symbols  |        | shown        |
-      | updates  | strings,vivified | nested | shown        |
-      | updates  | symbols,strings  |        | shown        |
-      | updates  | symbols,vivified |        | shown        |
-      | updates  | vivified,strings |        | shown        |
-      | updates  | vivified,symbols |        | shown        |
-
-  Scenario: Quoted symbols
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that reads node attributes via symbols and quoted_symbols
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the attribute consistency warning 019 should be not shown
-
-  Scenario: Multiple file matches
-    Given a cookbook with five recipes
-      And three of the recipes read node attributes via strings
-      And two of the recipes read node attributes via symbols
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the attribute consistency warning 019 should be shown for both of the recipes that use symbols
-
-  Scenario Outline: Ignore node built-in methods
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that <accesses> node attributes via <read_access_type> and calls node.<method>
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the attribute consistency warning 019 should be <show_warning>
-
-    Examples:
-      | accesses | read_access_type | method    | show_warning |
-      | reads    | strings          | platform? | not shown    |
-      | reads    | symbols          | run_list  | not shown    |
-      | reads    | symbols          | run_state | not shown    |
-      | reads    | strings          | run_state | not shown    |
-      | reads    | strings          | set       | not shown    |
-      | reads    | strings,symbols  | set       | shown        |
-
-  Scenario Outline: Ignore method calls on node values
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that <accesses> node attributes via <read_access_type> with <expression>
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the attribute consistency warning 019 should be <show_warning>
-
-    Examples:
-      | accesses | read_access_type | expression                        | show_warning |
-      | reads    | symbols          | node.platform_version             | shown        |
-      | reads    | symbols          | node.run_list                     | not shown    |
-      | reads    | symbols          | node[:foo].chomp                  | not shown    |
-      | reads    | symbols          | node[:foo][:bar].split(' ').first | not shown    |
-      | reads    | symbols          | node[:foo].bar                    | not shown    |
-      | reads    | symbols          | foo = node[:foo].bar              | not shown    |
-      | reads    | symbols          | node[:foo].each{\|f\| puts f}     | not shown    |
-      | updates  | symbols          | node[:foo].strip                  | not shown    |
-      | updates  | strings          | node[:foo].strip                  | shown        |
-      | updates  | strings          | foo = node[:foo].strip            | shown        |
-      | updates  | symbols          | node['foo'].strip                 | shown        |
-
-  Scenario: Ignore method calls on patched node values
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that calls a patched node method
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the attribute consistency warning 019 should be not shown
-
-  Scenario: Ignore explicit method calls (zero-arg)
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that explicitly calls a node method
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the attribute consistency warning 019 should be not shown
-
-  Scenario: Ignore explicit method calls (multiple arguments)
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that explicitly calls a node method with multiple arguments
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the attribute consistency warning 019 should be not shown
-
-  Scenario: User hashes
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that uses a hash value to access a node attribute
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the attribute consistency warning 019 should be not shown
-
-  Scenario: Interpolated access
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that mixes node access types in an interpolated value
-      When I check the cookbook
-     Then the attribute consistency warning 019 should be shown
-
-  Scenario: Two cookbooks with differing approaches
-    Given a cookbook with a single recipe that reads node attributes via strings only
-      And another cookbook with a single recipe that reads node attributes via symbols only
-     When I check the cookbook tree
-    Then the attribute consistency warning 019 should not be displayed