[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FC001, attributes as strings vs symbols

[Jesse Nelson < >]

sure but then you may as well have your attribs just be strings :)

/bikeshed supreme


On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM, John Dyer 
<
 >
 wrote:
> Actually, symbols do work w/ -'s, you just have to wrap them in quotes:
>
> 1.9.3-p194 :002 >  :"a-b"
>  => :"a-b"
> 1.9.3-p194 :003 >
>
> -John
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Jesse Nelson 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
>>
>>  symbols will break in ruby when using  -'s
>>
>> [1] pry(main)> :a-b
>> NameError: undefined local variable or method `b' for main:Object
>> from (pry):1:in `__pry__'
>> [2] pry(main)> :a_b
>> => :a_b
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Paul Graydon 
>> <
 >
>> wrote:
>> > Why add unnecessary constraints?
>> > What do we gain by stopping people from using -'s and other marks in
>> > attributes?
>> >
>> > It doesn't particularly affect me either way because I don't do it, but
>> > I'm
>> > not sure I see a particular benefit in restricting such practices.
>> >
>> > Paul
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/16/2012 10:13 AM, Jesse Nelson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I agree with the too noisy sentiment. I think that being consistent in
>> >> a cook is good, but I personally prefer symbols and enforcing a no -'s
>> >> in attrib names. Of course there are exceptions that you run into, and
>> >> you have to use strings. I find symbols easier on the eyes and
>> >> fingers.
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >> Jesse Nelson
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Jeremy Voorhis 
>> >> <
 >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> As a maintainer of in-house and 3rd party cookbooks for my
>> >>> organization,
>> >>> I
>> >>> find FC001 too noisy to be useful. We haven't yet modernized our repo
>> >>> to
>> >>> include every single cookbook as a self-contained repo, and in some
>> >>> cases
>> >>> find little benefit in doing so. New cookbooks follow FC001 and other
>> >>> best
>> >>> practices that didn't yet exist or weren't widely known at the time,
>> >>> so
>> >>> this
>> >>> rule is mostly ignored for now and we test for the desired outcome
>> >>> instead.
>> >>>
>> >>> Jeremy
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Joshua Timberman
>> >>> <
 >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ohai, Chefs!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We want to hear from you: which way of using node attributes do you
>> >>>> prefer? Please take this single question survey:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1059291/FC001-Use-strings-in-preference-to-symbols-to-access-node-attributes
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This is in response to a longer twitter discussion today on the
>> >>>> subject.
>> >>>> The survey will be left open for awhile, letting as many people as
>> >>>> possible
>> >>>> answer. We *really* value this feedback.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If you want an explanation of why this rule came about the way it
>> >>>> did,
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> our rationale for preferring strings to symbols, see this issue in
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> Foodcritic project:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://github.com/acrmp/foodcritic/issues/1
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If you're going to be at the Chef summit next week, I'm happy to
>> >>>> discuss
>> >>>> this in greater detail, too :-).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>
>