foodcritic 15.0.0 → 15.1.0

data/features/021_check_for_dodgy_lwrp_conditions.feature

@@ -1,28 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for dodgy provider conditions
-
-  In order to ensure that resources are declared as intended within a resource provider
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify resource conditions that will be checked only for the first resource
-
-  Scenario: Provider with no condition
-    Given a cookbook that contains a LWRP that declares a resource with no condition
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the dodgy resource condition warning 021 should not be displayed against the provider file
-
-  Scenario Outline: Provider conditions
-    Given a cookbook that contains a LWRP that declares a resource called <name> with the condition <condition>
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the dodgy resource condition warning 021 <show_warning> be displayed against the provider file
-
-  Examples:
-    | name                               | condition                                                  | show_warning |
-    | "create_site"                      | not_if { ::File.exists?("/tmp/fixed-path")}                | should not   |
-    | "create_site"                      | not_if { ::File.exists?("/tmp/#{new_resource.name}")}      | should       |
-    | "create_site_#{new_resource.name}" | not_if { ::File.exists?("/tmp/#{new_resource.name}")}      | should not   |
-    | "create_site"                      | only_if { ::File.exists?("/tmp/#{new_resource.name}")}     | should       |
-    | "create_site_#{new_resource.name}" | only_if { ::File.exists?("/tmp/#{new_resource.name}")}     | should not   |
-    | "create_site"                      | only_if "[ ! -f \"/tmp/#{new_resource.name}\" ]"           | should       |
-    | "create_site"                      | not_if "[ -f \"/tmp/#{new_resource.name}\" ]"              | should       |
-    | "create_site_#{new_resource.name}" | not_if "[ -f \"/tmp/#{new_resource.name}\" ]"              | should not   |
-    | "create_site"                      | only_if do ::File.exists?("/tmp/#{new_resource.name}") end | should       |
-    | "create_site_#{new_resource.name}" | only_if do ::File.exists?("/tmp/#{new_resource.name}") end | should not   |

data/features/022_check_for_dodgy_conditions_within_loop.feature

@@ -1,43 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for dodgy resource conditions within a loop
-
-  In order to ensure that resources are declared as intended
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify resource conditions within a loop that will not be re-evaluated
-
-  Scenario: Resource outside a loop
-    Given a cookbook recipe that declares a resource called "feed_pet" with the condition outside a loop
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the dodgy resource condition warning 022 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario Outline: Resource within a loop
-    Given a cookbook recipe that declares a resource called <name> with the condition <condition> in a loop
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the dodgy resource condition warning 022 <show_warning> be displayed
-
-  Examples:
-    | name                   | condition                                         | show_warning |
-    | "feed_pet"             |                                                   | should not   |
-    | "feed_pet"             | not_if { ::File.exists?("/tmp/fixed-path")}       | should not   |
-    | "feed_pet"             | not_if { ::File.exists?("/tmp/#{pet_name}")}      | should       |
-    | "feed_pet"             | only_if { ::File.exists?("/tmp/#{pet_name}")}     | should       |
-    | "feed_pet"             | only_if { ::File.exists?(pet_name)}               | should       |
-    | "feed_pet_#{pet_name}" | not_if { ::File.exists?("/tmp/#{pet_name}")}      | should not   |
-    | "feed_pet"             | not_if { ::File.exists?("/tmp/#{unrelated_var}")} | should not   |
-    | "feed_pet"             | only_if "[ -f \"/tmp/#{pet_name}\" ]"             | should       |
-    | "feed_pet_#{pet_name}" | not_if "[ -f \"/tmp/#{pet_name}\" ]"              | should not   |
-    | pet_name               | not_if "[ -f \"/tmp/#{pet_name}\" ]"              | should not   |
-
-  Scenario: Resource within a multi-arg block
-    Given a resource declared with a guard within a loop with multiple block arguments
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the dodgy resource condition warning 022 should not be shown
-
-  Scenario: Resource guard contains a block
-    Given a resource that declares a guard containing a block
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the dodgy resource condition warning 022 should not be shown
-
-  Scenario: Loop in a definition
-    Given a resource declared within a definition
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the dodgy resource condition warning 022 should not be shown

data/features/024_check_for_missing_platforms.feature

@@ -1,43 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for missing platforms
-
-  In order to maximise the portability of my cookbooks
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify when a recipe misses a popular flavour from a platform family
-
-  Scenario Outline: Platform flavour missing
-    Given a cookbook recipe with a '<type>' condition for flavours <flavours>
-      And the cookbook metadata declares support for <supports>
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the consider adding platform warning 024 <warning>
-
-    Examples:
-      | type      | supports                    | flavours                                              | warning             |
-      | case      |                             | chalk,cheese                                          | should not be shown |
-      | case      |                             | debian,ubuntu                                         | should not be shown |
-      | case      |                             | centos,redhat,scientific,oracle                       | should not be shown |
-      | case      |                             | centos,debian,fedora,redhat,scientific,oracle         | should not be shown |
-      | case      |                             | redhat                                                | should not be shown |
-      | case      |                             | centos,redhat                                         | should be shown     |
-      | case      | centos,redhat               | centos,redhat                                         | should not be shown |
-      | case      |                             | centos,redhat,scientific                              | should be shown     |
-      | case      | centos,redhat,scientific    | centos,redhat,scientific                              | should not be shown |
-      | case      | centos,debian,scientific    | centos,scientific                                     | should not be shown |
-      | case      | centos,redhat,scientific    | redhat,scientific                                     | should be shown     |
-      | case      | debian,redhat,centos,fedora | redhat,centos,fedora                                  | should not be shown |
-      | platform? |                             | centos,redhat,scientific,oracle                       | should not be shown |
-      | platform? |                             | redhat                                                | should not be shown |
-      | platform? |                             | redhat,scientific                                     | should be shown     |
-      | platform? | redhat,scientific           | redhat,scientific                                     | should not be shown |
-      | platform? | centos,redhat,scientific    | centos,scientific                                     | should be shown     |
-      | platform? | centos,redhat,oracle        | centos,redhat                                         | should be shown     |
-
-  Scenario: Supported platforms specifies versions
-    Given a cookbook recipe with a 'case' condition for flavours 'redhat,scientific'
-      And the cookbook metadata declares support with versions specified
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the consider adding platform warning 024 should not be shown
-
-  Scenario: Unrelated case statement
-    Given a cookbook recipe with a case condition unrelated to platform
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the consider adding platform warning 024 should not be shown

data/features/027_check_for_internal_attribute_use.feature

@@ -1,22 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for use of internal attributes
-
-  In order to avoid confusion about the expected state of a converged node
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify calls to 'internal' resource attributes
-
-  Scenario Outline: Access of internal attributes
-    Given a cookbook recipe that declares a <resource> resource with the <attribute> attribute set to <value>
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the resource sets internal attribute warning 027 should be <show_warning>
-
-  Examples:
-    | resource | attribute    | value              | show_warning |
-    | service  | enabled      | true               | shown        |
-    | service  | enabled      | false              | shown        |
-    | service  | enabled      | [].include?('foo') | shown        |
-    | service  | running      | true               | shown        |
-    | service  | running      | false              | shown        |
-    | service  | running      | [].include?('foo') | shown        |
-    | service  | service_name | "foo"              | not shown    |
-    | my_lwrp  | enabled      | true               | not shown    |
-    | my_lwrp  | running      | true               | not shown    |

data/features/030_check_for_debugger_breakpoints.feature

@@ -1,25 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for debugger breakpoints
-
-  In order to avoid halting a converge
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify debugger breakpoints that have not been removed
-
-  Scenario Outline: Debugger breakpoints
-    Given a cookbook with a <component> that <includes> a breakpoint
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the debugger breakpoint warning 030 should be <show_warning> against the <component>
-
-  Examples:
-    | component | includes         | show_warning |
-    | library   | does not include | not shown    |
-    | library   | includes         | shown        |
-    | metadata  | does not include | not shown    |
-    | metadata  | includes         | shown        |
-    | provider  | does not include | not shown    |
-    | provider  | includes         | shown        |
-    | recipe    | does not include | not shown    |
-    | recipe    | includes         | shown        |
-    | resource  | does not include | not shown    |
-    | resource  | includes         | shown        |
-    | template  | does not include | not shown    |
-    | template  | includes         | shown        |

data/features/032_check_for_invalid_notification_timing.feature

@@ -1,24 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for invalid notification timings
-
-  In order to flag invalid notifications more quickly
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify notifications that have an invalid timing type
-
-  Scenario Outline: Notification timings
-    Given a cookbook recipe with a resource that <type> <notification_timing>
-    When I check the cookbook specifying <version> as the Chef version
-    Then the invalid notification timing warning 032 <display> be displayed
-  Examples:
-    | type       | notification_timing | version | display     |
-    | notifies   |                     | 12.6.0  | should not  |
-    | notifies   | before              | 12.6.0  | should not  |
-    | notifies   | immediately         | 12.6.0  | should not  |
-    | notifies   | immediate           | 12.6.0  | should not  |
-    | notifies   | delayed             | 12.6.0  | should not  |
-    | notifies   | imediately          | 12.6.0  | should      |
-    | subscribes |                     | 12.6.0  | should not  |
-    | subscribes | before              | 12.6.0  | should not  |
-    | subscribes | immediately         | 12.6.0  | should not  |
-    | subscribes | immediate           | 12.6.0  | should not  |
-    | subscribes | delayed             | 12.6.0  | should not  |
-    | subscribes | imediately          | 12.6.0  | should      |

data/features/033_check_for_missing_template.feature

@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for missing template
-
-  In order to ensure the Chef run is successful
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify template resources that refer to missing templates
-
-  Scenario Outline: Template types
-    Given a cookbook recipe that <template_type>
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the missing template warning 033 <warning>
-  Examples:
-    | template_type                                                             | warning                 |
-    | defines a template where both the name and source are complex expressions | should not be displayed |
-    | defines a template where name and source are both simple expressions      | should not be displayed |
-    | defines a template where name is a complex expression                     | should not be displayed |
-    | infers a template with an expression                                      | should not be displayed |
-    | refers to a hidden template                                               | should not be displayed |
-    | refers to a local template                                                | should not be displayed |
-    | refers to a missing template                                              | should be displayed     |
-    | refers to a template in a subdirectory                                    | should not be displayed |
-    | refers to a template                                                      | should not be displayed |
-    | refers to a template with an expression                                   | should not be displayed |
-    | refers to a template without an erb extension                             | should not be displayed |
-    | uses a missing inferred template                                          | should be displayed     |
-    | uses an inferred template                                                 | should not be displayed |
-    | uses a template from another cookbook                                     | should not be displayed |
-
-  Scenario Outline: Template in the root of the templates directory
-    Given a cookbook recipe that refers to a template in the root of the templates directory
-     When I check the cookbook specifying <version> as the Chef version
-     Then the missing template warning 033 <warning>
-  Examples:
-    | version    | warning                   |
-    | 12.9.38    | should not be displayed   |
-
-  Scenario: Template within deploy resource
-    Given a cookbook recipe with a deploy resource that contains a template resource
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the missing template warning 033 should not be displayed against the template

data/features/034_check_for_unused_template_variables.feature

@@ -1,80 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for unused template variables
-
-  In order to identify failure to parameterise template variables
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify variables passed to templates that are not used
-
-  Scenario: All variables present in template
-    Given a cookbook template that uses all variables passed
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the unused template variables warning 034 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario Outline: No variables passed
-    Given a cookbook that passes no variables to a template
-      And the template contains the expression <expression>
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the unused template variables warning 034 should not be displayed against the template
-    Examples:
-      | expression                  |
-      | node[:configs][:config_var] |
-      | @config_var                 |
-
-  Scenario Outline: Variables passed
-    Given a cookbook that passes variables <variables> to a template with extension <extension>
-      And the template <extension> contains the expression <expression>
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the unused template variables warning 034 <displayed> be displayed against the template <extension>
-    Examples:
-      | variables              | expression                  | extension | displayed  |
-      | config_var             | node[:configs][:config_var] | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var             | @config_var                 | .conf.erb | should not |
-      | config_var             | @config_var['foo']          | .conf.erb | should not |
-      | config_var             | node[:configs][:config_var] | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var,another_var | node[:configs][:config_var] | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var,another_var | @config_var                 | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var,another_var | @another_var                | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var             | @config_var                 | .conf     | should not |
-      | config_var,another_var | @another_var                | .conf     | should     |
-
-  Scenario Outline: Variables passed with includes
-    Given a cookbook that passes variables <variables> to a template with extension <extension>
-      And the template <extension> contains partial includes of type <type> with the expression <expression>
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the unused template variables warning 034 <displayed> be displayed against the template <extension>
-    Examples:
-      | variables              | expression                  | type           | extension | displayed  |
-      | config_var             | node[:configs][:config_var] | no parentheses | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var             | @config_var                 | no parentheses | .conf.erb | should not |
-      | config_var             | @config_var['foo']          | no parentheses | .conf.erb | should not |
-      | config_var             | node[:configs][:config_var] | no parentheses | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var,another_var | node[:configs][:config_var] | no parentheses | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var,another_var | @config_var                 | no parentheses | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var,another_var | @another_var                | no parentheses | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var             | @config_var                 | no parentheses | .conf     | should not |
-      | config_var,another_var | @another_var                | no parentheses | .conf     | should     |
-      | config_var             | node[:configs][:config_var] | parentheses    | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var             | @config_var                 | parentheses    | .conf.erb | should not |
-      | config_var             | @config_var['foo']          | parentheses    | .conf.erb | should not |
-      | config_var             | node[:configs][:config_var] | parentheses    | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var,another_var | node[:configs][:config_var] | parentheses    | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var,another_var | @config_var                 | parentheses    | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var,another_var | @another_var                | parentheses    | .conf.erb | should     |
-      | config_var             | @config_var                 | parentheses    | .conf     | should not |
-      | config_var,another_var | @another_var                | parentheses    | .conf     | should     |
-      | config_var,another_var | @config_var,@another_var    | nested         | .conf     | should not |
-      | config_var,another_var | @config_var                 | nested         | .conf     | should     |
-
-  Scenario Outline: Template path is inferred
-    Given a cookbook that passes variables <variables> to an inferred template
-      And the inferred template contains the expression <expression>
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the unused template variables warning 034 <displayed> be displayed against the inferred template
-    Examples:
-      | variables              | expression                  | displayed  |
-      | config_var             | node[:configs][:config_var] | should     |
-      | config_var             | @config_var                 | should not |
-
-  Scenario: Template includes contain cycle
-    Given a template that includes a partial that includes the original template again
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the unused template variables warning 034 should not be displayed

data/features/037_check_for_invalid_notification_action.feature

@@ -1,34 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for invalid notification actions
-
-  In order to flag invalid notifications more quickly
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify notifications that have an action which is invalid for the notified resource
-
-  Scenario Outline: Notification actions
-    Given a cookbook recipe with a resource that notifies a <resource> to <action>
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the invalid notification action warning 037 <display> be displayed
-  Examples:
-    | resource | action  | display    |
-    | service  | restart | should not |
-    | service  | nothing | should not |
-    | service  | create  | should     |
-    | execute  | run     | should not |
-    | execute  | execute | should     |
-
-  Scenario Outline: Subscription actions
-    Given a cookbook recipe with a <source> resource that subscribes to <action> when notified by a remote_file
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the invalid notification action warning 037 <display> be displayed
-  Examples:
-    | source   | action  | display    |
-    | service  | restart | should not |
-    | service  | nothing | should not |
-    | service  | create  | should     |
-    | execute  | run     | should not |
-    | execute  | execute | should     |
-
-  Scenario: Notification action is an expression
-    Given a cookbook recipe with a resource that notifies where the action is an expression
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the invalid notification action warning 037 should not be displayed

data/features/038_check_for_invalid_action.feature

@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for invalid resource actions
-
-  In order to avoid failure at converge time
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify resources that have an invalid action
-
-  Scenario: Resource with default action
-    Given a cookbook recipe with a service resource that does not specify an action
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the invalid resource action warning 038 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Resource with variable action
-    Given a cookbook recipe with a service resource with an action specified via a variable
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the invalid resource action warning 038 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario Outline: Resource actions
-    Given a cookbook recipe with a <resource> resource with action <action>
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the invalid resource action warning 038 <display> be displayed
-  Examples:
-    | resource | action  | display    |
-    | service  | restart | should not |
-    | service  | nothing | should not |
-    | service  | none    | should     |
-    | service  | create  | should     |
-    | execute  | run     | should not |
-    | execute  | go      | should     |
-    | foo      | none    | should not |
-
-  Scenario Outline: Multiple actions
-    Given a cookbook recipe with a <resource> resource with actions <actions>
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the invalid resource action warning 038 <display> be displayed
-  Examples:
-    | resource | actions              | display    |
-    | service  | enable, start        | should not |
-    | service  | enble, start         | should     |
-    | foo      | energize, revitalize | should not |

data/features/039_check_for_key_access_to_node_methods.feature

@@ -1,33 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for key access to node methods
-
-  In order to avoid failure at converge time
-  As a developer
-  I want to identify attempts to access node methods as attributes
-
-  Scenario Outline: Resource actions
-    Given a cookbook recipe that refers to <node_access>
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the node method cannot be accessed with key warning 039 <display> be displayed
-  Examples:
-    | node_access              | display    |
-    | node['foo']              | should not |
-    | node[:foo]               | should not |
-    | node.foo                 | should not |
-    | node.chef_environment    | should not |
-    | node[:chef_environment]  | should     |
-    | node['chef_environment'] | should     |
-    | node.run_state['foo']    | should not |
-    | node.run_state[:foo]     | should not |
-    | node.run_state.foo       | should not |
-    | node['run_state']['foo'] | should     |
-    | node[:run_state][:foo]   | should     |
-    | node['foo']['run_state'] | should not |
-    | node[:foo][:run_state]   | should not |
-    | node['tags']             | should not |
-    | node[:tags]              | should not |
-    | node.tags                | should not |
-
-  Scenario: Expressions that look like node access
-    Given a cookbook recipe that has a confusingly named local variable "default"
-    When I check the cookbook
-    Then the node method cannot be accessed with key warning 039 should not be displayed

data/features/044_check_for_bare_attribute_keys.feature

@@ -1,53 +0,0 @@
-Feature: Check for bare attribute keys
-
-  In order to ensure my cookbook attributes are easily understood
-  As a developer
-  I want to avoid referring to bare attributes
-
-  Scenario Outline: Cookbook attributes
-    Given a cookbook attributes file that refers to an attribute with <reference>
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the bare attribute keys warning 044 <show_warning> be displayed against the attributes file
-  Examples:
-    | reference        | show_warning |
-    | node['hostname'] | should not   |
-    | node[:hostname]  | should not   |
-    | node.hostname    | should not   |
-    | hostname         | should       |
-    | true             | should not   |
-    | false            | should not   |
-    | nil              | should not   |
-
-  Scenario: Cookbook recipe
-    Given a cookbook recipe that refers to an attribute with a bare keyword
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the bare attribute keys warning 044 should not be displayed
-
-  Scenario: Variable declared in attributes file
-    Given a cookbook attributes file that declares and refers to a local variable
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the bare attribute keys warning 044 should not be displayed against the local variable
-
-  Scenario Outline: Block variable
-    Given a cookbook attributes file with a <block_type> block that takes arguments
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the bare attribute keys warning 044 should not be displayed against the <block_type> block
-  Examples:
-    | block_type |
-    | do         |
-    | brace      |
-
-  Scenario: Attribute set to library method call
-    Given a cookbook attributes file that sets an attribute to be the result of a library call
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the bare attribute keys warning 044 should not be displayed against the library call
-
-  Scenario: Attribute chain with new line
-    Given a cookbook attributes file that sets an attribute to have line break
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the bare attribute keys warning 044 should not be displayed against the local variable
-
-  Scenario: Attribute chain with new line and parameterized name
-    Given a cookbook attributes file that sets an attribute to have line break and arguments
-     When I check the cookbook
-     Then the bare attribute keys warning 044 should not be displayed against the new line