Qualify the Scope class name

[andyw8]

I'd like to propose this small change to the generator, and the corresponding examples in the README. However, I'm very new to Pundit so I'm seeking input from others with more experience.

When using the generator, it results in a Scope < Scope inheritance, equivalent to Scope < ApplicationPolicy::Scope.

This may be a matter of personal taste, but I find that having a class inheriting from another with (visually) the same name is jarring, and reduces readability, since it requires reading the surrounding context.

Additionally, this causes complications with typing system. For example, if using Sorbet:

app/policies/list_policy.rb:37: Circular dependency: ListPolicy::Scope is a parent of itself https://srb.help/5011
    37 |  class Scope < Scope

(although it can be argued that this is a bug/limitation of Sorbet).

Looking forward to hearing some feedback.

[Burgestrand]

This may be a matter of personal taste, but I find that having a class inheriting from another with (visually) the same name is jarring, and reduces readability, since it requires reading the surrounding context.

Thank you for the PR! I agree. I think your proposal is great. We should merge it.

However.

This changes behaviour compared to code generated before this change in a subtle way: https://gist.github.com/Burgestrand/4b4bc22f31c8a95c425fc0e30d7ef1f5

I don't think code should take advantage of < Scope being different from < ApplicationPolicy::Scope, but even more strongly I believe Pundit should avoid unpleasant surprises between updates.

I'm uncertain if a mere CHANGELOG entry is sufficient, and I think a comment in the generated code would be good. Generated code should always be inspected, so a comment should be sufficient to highlight this change to avoid developers being caught off-guard.

Could you please:

• Update the CHANGELOG.
• Add a comment to the policy generator template to highlight that the code might be different from previously generated policies.

[andyw8]

@Burgestrand thanks for the feedback! I've pushed some updates.

[Burgestrand]

I think this is good! I'll give you a chance to read the comments, and if you're up for it removing or adjusting the version specificer in the comment. Once you're happy we'll merge!

[andyw8]

Thanks, updated.