Do not replace and with && after a redirect_to or redirect_back

[fidalgo]

When writing the code:

redirect_to(root_path) and return it gets autocorrected with redirect_to(root_path) && return

same for redirect_back

This led to different behaviours, because && and and are different.

RuboCop version

$ [bundle exec] rubocop -V
0.80.0 (using Parser 2.7.0.2, running on ruby 2.6.5 x86_64-linux)

[andyw8]

Can you describe the incorrect behaviour you're seeing?

&& has higher precedence than and, but since you've wrapped the argument in parentheses, I would expect it to work correctly in this case.

[fidalgo]

@andyw8 Thanks for reaching out, because of double rendering errors, as you can find here https://stackoverflow.com/a/1426835/1006863 and a more in depth explanation https://guides.rubyonrails.org/layouts_and_rendering.html#avoiding-double-render-errors

[andyw8]

Yes, I understand the need for it, but I would have expected these to have equivalent behaviour:

redirect_to(root_path) and return
redirect_to(root_path) && return

[fidalgo]

@andyw8 not really:

Make sure to use and return instead of && return because && return will not work due to the operator precedence in the Ruby Language.

from https://guides.rubyonrails.org/layouts_and_rendering.html#avoiding-double-render-errors

also check: http://www.virtuouscode.com/2010/08/02/using-and-and-or-in-ruby/

[koic]

Make sure to use and return instead of && return because && return will not work due to the operator precedence in the Ruby Language.

I agree with this one.

The following idioms exist for return and raise in Ruby.

• do_something and return
• do_something || raise

And Rails will also show users the error message using this idiom.

"redirect_to(...) and return\"

https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v6.0.2.2/actionpack/lib/abstract_controller/rendering.rb#L10

Style/AndOr cop default rule (EnforcedStyle: always) does seem to unmatch for these cases. So I think these cases need to be accepted and I opened PR #224.