Standardize on the way method chains are broken up. about guides HOT 4 CLOSED

I haven't been feeling much pain from this. I think I've been writing this version:

stub_request(:put, url).
  with(
    headers: {
      "Authorization" => "some_token",
      "Accept" => "some_media_type",
    }
  ).
  to_return(
    body: "some body text",
    status: 200
  )

It's consistent with all the guidelines, it's consistently formatted, and it's easy to scan for method names in the chain.

from guides.

I'm going to close this, as the discussion seems to have wrapped up.

@gylaz want to open a pull request to solidify this?

from guides.

FWIW, I agree with this, we should make this a guideline. I've seen the second form lately and was irked.

from guides.

Actually, we already have a guideline that covers this:

If you break up a chain of method invocations, keep each method invocation on its own line. Place the . at the end of each line, except the last.

Source

However, I'm not sure how it's suppose to work in a case like this:

  some_really_really_long_method_name(
    arg1: "foo",
    arg2: "bar",
    arg3: "baz",
  ).
  another_method_name_with_args(
    arg1: "one",
    arg2: "two",
    arg3: "three",
  )

Should the another_method_name_with_args method be indented one level (but that would look weird)?
We always indent subsequent method in chains like:

  User.where(name: "blah").
    order("name DESC").
    includes(:subscriptions, :address).
    limit(10)

from guides.