I’ll assume that if you’re reading this post, then you probably already know what RuboCop is, so I won’t go into any details on that subject.

Yesterday the project reached a very important milestone on its way to the “magic” 1.0 release - namely the introduction of extended cop metadata and the ability to run only cops and auto-corrections that can’t possibly break your code by changing its meaning. We call such cops and their auto-corrections “safe”. Making use of the new functionality is very easy:

# Run only safe cops. $ rubocop --safe # Perform only safe auto-corrections. $ rubocop --safe-auto-correct # Run only safe cops and perform only safe auto-corrections. $ rubocop --safe --safe-auto-correct

Probably some of you’re wondering what will happen if you run all cops, but you perform only safe auto-corrections, right? Well, you’ll get all possible offenses reported, but RuboCop is going to fix automatically only the ones that are safe to fix.

Here’s also a small tip for you - if you want to always run only safe cops and do safe auto-corrections you can make use of the handy .rubocop file. Just create a .rubocop file in the root of your project and place there the following:

--safe --safe-autocorrect

By the way, did you know that you could also pass some default command-line options to RuboCop via the RUBOCOP_OPTS environment variable? It takes precedence over options set via .rubocop .

If you’re in a hurry you can safely stop reading at this point. For those of you who’d like to learn a bit more about all this, however, I’ve got a few extra things I’d like to share.

Diving Deeper

So, what makes a cop unsafe anyways? And why does RuboCop even have cops that we know can create trouble? Well, this is closely tied with Ruby’s dynamic nature and our inability to reliably determine things like the type of some receiver or what libraries are loaded at any given time when doing static analysis. Here are a few classic examples:

# Is something an instance of Enumerable or something else? something . find_all { ... } # Is something a hash? something . keys . include? ( key )

In the first example normally Style/CollectionMethods would suggest going for select instead of find_all , but there’s also the chance that the receiver ( something ) is not really an instance of a collection class that implements Enumerable .

In the second example the Performance/InefficientHashSearch would normally suggest using something.key?(key) , which would usually be what you want to do, but in case you have some other classes with keys instance methods you’ll get false positives for them. These type checks are pretty useful in general (and that’s why they exist), but they can also wreak havoc from time to time (especially if you don’t have a good test suite).

An even more nuanced example would be:

# Is something a instance of class that implements empty? # Does it have a size alias for length? something . length == 0

Style/ZeroLengthPredicate would suggest using empty? here and most of the time that’d be a great idea, but not every class that a has length (or size ) method would define a matching empty? method. Here’s a very real example where this check would fail:

File . stat ( manifest_file ). size == 0

Clearly here for the stat object the notion of being empty doesn’t make sense (although it does make sense for the file itself). RuboCop, however, can’t really tell what’s a collection and what’s something different, because it has no type information. Here we can do some special handling if the receiver is File.stat , but that’s just patching one specific problem and not a real solution. Another similar example would be the usage of size vs length - most often classes define those methods as aliases and people prefer to stick one or the other, but that’s also not always the case.

When in comes unsafe auto-corrections I think the classic examples would be something like:

# It'd be nice to use $CHILD_STATUS here instead, but is the English library loaded? if $? == 0 # ... end # x.nonzero? might read better, but it has different semantics. result = ! x . zero?

Here in the first example Style/SpecialGlobalVars would suggest by default to prefer names from the English library that’s bundled with Ruby, but it’s not loaded by default. As Ruby doesn’t force you to load library deps explicitly in the beginning of each source file go figure if this library is loaded or not, so you can safely replace the cryptic Perl-inspired name, which something more sensible. This also highlights an important RuboCop limitation - it operates (almost all of the time) on a single file and has no extra context about the other files that you might have in your project and the dependencies between them.

The second example is more nuanced - Ruby’s Integer class has both a zero? and nonzero? method and your first instinct would be that it’s probably safe to replace !zero? with nonzero? , but unfortunately they have different semantics.

# A classic Ruby WAT :-) 0 . zero? # => true 1 . zero? # => false 0 . nonzero? # => nil 1 . nonzero? # => 1

Pretty crazy, right?

In practical terms this means that depending on how the result of the method was used things like be business as usual or breakage to your code (the need for a “real” boolean value vs the need for something truthy or falsy).

Here’s another classic example:

for name in names do # ... end

Normally we’d want to replace this with Enumerable#each , because it’s more idiomatic and variables defined in the body of for leak outside of it (there’s no proper block scope there), but because of this leakage of scope it’s extra hard to be 100% something won’t break if you replace for with each . You actually have to check if the body of the for establishes some bindings and afterwards you have to check if some of them are not actually used outside of it. That’s perfectly doable, but it’s going to complicate a lot the code and we haven’t really done it.

How does RuboCop know which cops and auto-corrections are “safe”? Well, it’s very simply - everything’s considered safe by default unless it’s marked with some extra metadata in the cop’s definition. If we’re not confident that a cop won’t produce any false positives we marked with Safe: false and if a cop’s auto-correction doesn’t produce an equivalent transformation of the code we mark with SafeAutoCorrect: false . It’s pretty simple, right?

Here’s the metadata for Style/CollectionMethods :

# A completely unsafe cop Style/CollectionMethods : Description : ' Preferred collection methods.' StyleGuide : ' #map-find-select-reduce-size' Enabled : false VersionAdded : 0.9 VersionChanged : 0.27 Safe : false # A cop which produces reliable offenses (warnings), but has unsafe auto-correction Style/SpecialGlobalVars : Description : ' Avoid Perl-style global variables.' StyleGuide : ' #no-cryptic-perlisms' Enabled : true VersionAdded : 0.13 VersionChanged : 0.36 SafeAutoCorrect : false

If a cop is marked as unsafe then it’s auto-correction automatically becomes unsafe as well. As you can notice in this example historically we dealt with the problem differently - we marked cops that were likely to generate many false positives as disabled. We also marked some problematic auto-corrections as disabled. The value of the new attributes is that now you have even more granularity over what exactly you’re running and it’s also immediately apparent whether some cop can introduce any semantic changes to your code or not. It might not sound like a big deal, but I think that’s super important.

You might also notice that as part of this task we’ve also added some historical data for all of our cops. VersionAdded denotes when a cop was introduced and VersionChanged denotes when a cop’s public behaviour changed most recently (e.g. its default configuration was updated).

The real work on this issue was mostly going over all the cops and annotating the unsafe cops accordingly. You can read more about underlying metadata here and here.

I’d like to insert here a very big “Thanks!” to Maxim Krizhanovsky who did all the heavy lifting!

Epilogue

They say the most important step a person can take is the next step and I think that’s true.

The next big step in making RuboCop even safer is going to be to stop enabling new cops out of the box (unless that’s what a user wants). Take a look at the ticket that’s (supposedly) going to be the end of painful RuboCop upgrades. We’re still looking for a volunteer to tackle this, so this might be your opportunity to help the Ruby community!

I hope this post was useful and enjoyable to you!