Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix false positive for Style/EmptyLiteral with Hash.new([]) #13178

Merged

Conversation

Earlopain
Copy link
Contributor

The first parameter for Hash.new is the default value:

Hash.new([])[:foo]
# => []

Side note: this usage is most likely a programming error. You want the block form where different keys don't share the same underlying array.


Before submitting the PR make sure the following are checked:

  • The PR relates to only one subject with a clear title and description in grammatically correct, complete sentences.
  • Wrote good commit messages.
  • Commit message starts with [Fix #issue-number] (if the related issue exists).
  • Feature branch is up-to-date with master (if not - rebase it).
  • Squashed related commits together.
  • Added tests.
  • Ran bundle exec rake default. It executes all tests and runs RuboCop on its own code.
  • Added an entry (file) to the changelog folder named {change_type}_{change_description}.md if the new code introduces user-observable changes. See changelog entry format for details.

The first parameter for Hash.new is the default value:

```rb
Hash.new([])[:foo]
# => []
```

Side note: this usage is most likely a programming error. You want the block form
where different keys _don't_ share the same underlying array.
@koic
Copy link
Member

koic commented Sep 1, 2024

Yes, the compatibility with the behavior of {}[:key] needs to be maintained. Thank you!

@koic koic merged commit 4bb7cba into rubocop:master Sep 1, 2024
22 checks passed
@Earlopain Earlopain deleted the style-empty-literal-hash-default-value branch September 1, 2024 15:18
@bbatsov
Copy link
Collaborator

bbatsov commented Sep 2, 2024

Side note: this usage is most likely a programming error. You want the block form where different keys don't share the same underlying array.

Indeed. We should probably add a Lint check for this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants