Enabling RSpec IndexedLet Rubocop rule

[GarryHurleyJr]

https://docs.rubocop.org/rubocop-rspec/cops_rspec.html#rspecindexedlet

What are you trying to accomplish?

The RSpec IndexedLet rubocop rule has been disabled. This PR will re-enable it on the whole ecosystem.

Anything you want to highlight for special attention from reviewers?

This was essentially a renaming of variables in the rspec files. It shoud not affect anything.

How will you know you've accomplished your goal?

This cop just asks us to rename variables. The tests should run as normal.

Checklist

• I have run the complete test suite to ensure all tests and linters pass.
• I have thoroughly tested my code changes to ensure they work as expected, including adding additional tests for new functionality.
• I have written clear and descriptive commit messages.
• I have provided a detailed description of the changes in the pull request, including the problem it addresses, how it fixes the problem, and any relevant details about the implementation.
• I have ensured that the code is well-documented and easy to understand.

[jurre]

Swapping out file1 for first_file seems not in the spirit of the rule.

It makes reading the test harder because it’s not clear what exactly is tested by this particular example.

That is not addressed by changing things in this way.

There are also a bunch of scenarios here where v1 or v2 refers to the version of the package manager. We should configure a pattern to allow that, because that is very clear and the current changes actually make those cases much harder to understand, so we'd end up in a worse situation there.

[jurre]

v1 refers to the version of Bundler here. Not it being the first occurrence of the variable.

[GarryHurleyJr]

I can change that one to lockfile_bundle_with_version_one. It keeps the same spirit of that original name. In another fie I changed v6 to version_six for that reason.

[GarryHurleyJr]

corrected with commit 4c83ce7. Please review

[jurre]

None of these changes seem like they are an improvement, the spirit of this linter rule is to make the tests more readable. All of the changes I see here are along the lines of changing file1 to file_one, and while that passes the linter, it does not seem like a meaningful improvement. This will not make it easier to understand the intent of the test.

If we can't think of descriptive names for these, I'd rather we disable the rule than make these changes.

[GarryHurleyJr]

Instead of changing all of these files, per discussions, we are going to simply disable this rule as it does not gain us anything in the long run.

[jurre]

Instead of changing all of these files, per discussions, we are going to simply disable this rule as it does not gain us anything in the long run.

Not exactly how I would put it, but if all we're doing is changing file1 to file_one, we're better off disabling the rule.