Add new Rails/WhereRange cop

[fatkodima]

Closes #689.

It supports where and where.not, where with a a regular and an array syntax.

# bad
User.where('age >= ?', 18)
User.where.not('age >= ?', 18)
User.where('age < ?', 18)
User.where('age >= ? AND age < ?', 18, 21)
User.where('age >= :start', start: 18)
User.where('users.age >= ?', 18)

# good
User.where(age: 18..)
User.where.not(age: 18..)
User.where(age: ...18)
User.where(age: 18...21)
User.where(users: { age: 18.. })

# good
# There are no beginless ranges in ruby.
User.where('age > ?', 18)

[pirj]

The original ticket mentions a chain of where.

Also, for cases with an open-ended range the difference is not that critical. Can there be an option to strictly prefer ranges, or prefer ranges to double ‘where’ and ‘AND’?

[pirj]

And thanks for handling this! ❤️

[fatkodima]

The original ticket mentions a chain of where.

That will make this cop much more complex. I would like to avoid that. Most of the offences, I believe, are defined via a single where call.

[pirj]

At a glance, we need to consider what ruby (2.6, 2.7+ or eaerlier) and Rails versions are our targets. Depending on this, suggestions may not apply. See this styleguide note and this comment.

there is nothing that would replace a set of conditions where one is inclusive, and the other is exclusive:
'foo >= ? AND foo < ?'

The cop does consider this, right?

[pirj]

will make this cop much more complex

I understand that, and I see that even now the cop is far from trivial.
My concern is that the cop would turn ‘where(“a > ?”, …).where(“a < ?”, …)’ into a chain of two ‘where’s, each with an open range. And combining ranges manually when there’s no cop to help is prone to this pitfall with a combination of inclusive / exclusive ranges.

[koic]

Endless ranges (start..) are supported since Ruby 2.6, while beginless ranges (..end) are supported since Ruby 2.7. Each should be considered accordingly.

[fatkodima]

Ruby 2.7 is EOL for a long time. Not to mention 2.6.
Instead, wdyt about dropping the support for it altogether from the gem?

[koic]

The runtime Ruby version (2.7+) and parsing Ruby version (2.0+) are different. This is the parsing Ruby version.

[fatkodima]

Do you mean by the original comment, that I should update the test cases only or the code of the cop too?

[pirj]

RSpec supports Ruby 1.8.7
RuboCop “Targets Ruby 2.0+ code analysis”.
RuboCop Rails:

Rails cops support the following versions:
Rails 4.2+

Please don’t get me wrong, I always advocate to drop support for EOL versions, even in minor/patch versions. But while those versions are supported, we need to be compatible.

[fatkodima]

I added minimum_target_ruby_version 2.7. Do you mean to lower it to 2.6 and handle both cases of endless ranges support differently?

[pirj]

I think it’s just perfect. My apologies for my ambiguous language, I meant not to break it for earlier ruby/rails versions.

[koic]

Do you mean to lower it to 2.6 and handle both cases of endless ranges support differently?

Yes.

[fatkodima]

Updated. Please, take a look.

[koic]

Prism matrix is failure. Can you use unsupported_on: :prism?
https://github.com/rubocop/rubocop-rails/actions/runs/8860610072/job/24331577196?pr=1272

Suggested change

	it 'does not register an offense when using anonymous `<=`' do
	expect_no_offenses(<<~RUBY)
	Model.where('column <= ?', value)
	RUBY
	end
	it 'does not register an offense when using anonymous `<`' do
	expect_no_offenses(<<~RUBY)
	Model.where('column < ?', value)
	RUBY
	end
	context 'TargetRubyVersion <= 2.6', :ruby26, unsupported_on: :prism do
	it 'does not register an offense when using anonymous `<=`' do
	expect_no_offenses(<<~RUBY)
	Model.where('column <= ?', value)
	RUBY
	end
	it 'does not register an offense when using anonymous `<`' do
	expect_no_offenses(<<~RUBY)
	Model.where('column < ?', value)
	RUBY
	end
	end

[koic]

Can these constants be moved above minimum_target_ruby_version?

[fatkodima]

Made updates.

[koic]

Thanks!