Issue#186 function names refactoring #277
Conversation
…TE.erl, using new example files added in 4ade99
Currently only covers exported functions
…t hidden functions are still checked
I'm not super-happy about the dpulication between the anonymous functions within exported_functions/1 and function_names/1. I may revisit those.
Returns anonymous Funs that were previously inline
|
@elbrujohalcon I think this is ready for comments. |
|
@kbaird can you add your rule to the elvis.config file, please? |
|
and if you haven't already, please add your rule to the wiki as well. Thanks :) |
| { | ||
| elvis_style, | ||
| function_naming_convention, | ||
| #{regex => "^([a-z]*_?)*(_SUITE)?$"} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
let's change that regex to something that says "lowercase ascii charts, underscores and digits", which is usually the default value for this rule, please
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I intentionally removed digits based on "Function names must use only lowercase characters" at https://github.com/inaka/erlang_guidelines#function-names. I also have a rule that forbids digits in function names.
I just want to confirm that you'd like that rule removed, and the regex to match the same one used for module names, which allows digits?
If so, can we update the quotation that I misinterpreted to say "only lowercase characters or digits" ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can update the quotation. Would you mind sending a PR with that change?
When I think of functions with numbers, I'm thinking in stuff like base64_encode or rfc###_… or iso6801_…, etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure. pushing the change now, and will do that PR for the guidelines after that. Thanks.
| { | ||
| elvis_style, | ||
| function_naming_convention, | ||
| #{regex => "^([a-z][a-z0-9]*_?)*(_SUITE)?$"} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you still need to remove _SUITE from here 
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is the (_SUITE) present for the module_naming_convention? I was trying to follow the pattern established from module names by (_SUITE) being present in elvis.config but absent from style_SUITE.erl
If (_SUITE) is removed from the function use, should it also be removed from the module use?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
because common-test modules must be called something_SUITE
So, no. It shouldn't be removed from the module name rule.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, cool. Thanks. I was genuinely curious. Fix coming soon.
… is a common-test need for modules that does not apply to function names
Issue#186 function names refactoring
No description provided.