[Fix #12309] Add new Style/SuperArguments cop

[Earlopain]

#12309 Implements the following:

def method(a, b, c:, d: &e)
  super(a, b, c:, d:, &e)
  # => super
end

There are 57 offenses of this kind in Rails master.

Looks like I picked quite the doozy for my first cop. I managed but I'm open to feedback on how to write better code here.
I tried to think of all the constellations you can use super in and handling those appropriately in the cop but I'm not certain if I got it all. Let me know if there are other edge-cases that need to be considered, like calling super inside define_singleton_method.

The cop could be more intelligent with keyword arguments when they appear in different orders like in the following example but I'll leave that be for now since the cop seems quite complex already. Something to improve upon in the future.

def test(a:, b:)
  super(b:, a:)
end

• The PR relates to only one subject with a clear title and description in grammatically correct, complete sentences.
• Wrote good commit messages.
• Commit message starts with [Fix #issue-number] (if the related issue exists).
• Feature branch is up-to-date with master (if not - rebase it).
• Squashed related commits together.
• Added tests.
• Ran bundle exec rake default. It executes all tests and runs RuboCop on its own code.
• Added an entry (file) to the changelog folder named {change_type}_{change_description}.md if the new code introduces user-observable changes. See changelog entry format for details.

[koic]

There might be users who intentionally write explicit arguments. So, I wonder if the cop name "Redundant" is suitable.
And, it would be beneficial to first suggest a rationale in the style guide for using zero arity super (zsuper) when super can have its arguments omitted:
https://github.com/rubocop/ruby-style-guide

[koic]

It's likely that cop name such as Style/ZeroAritySuper cop may be better appropriate, I think.

[bbatsov]

@Earlopain ping :-)

[Earlopain]

Oh, I forgot I even did this.

I renamed the cop to the suggestion from koic and disabled it by default. I don't fell strongly about this anymore to discuss about this in the styleguide, so if disabled by default is not good then feel free to close this.

[bbatsov]

I think the cop is useful, and I even thought we already had something like it.

As far as the names go - I'm not sure I like ZeroAritySuper, as I find it a bit vague. Perhaps it could just be named SuperArguments, which would also leave the door to enforce removing or providing any redundant arguments. Anyways, I don't feel strongly about the name, but I'll leave this open for a bit more in case someone proposes a name that is clearer.

@rubocop/rubocop-core Any opinions on this would be welcome!

[bbatsov]

I renamed the cop to the suggestion from koic and disabled it by default. I don't fell strongly about this anymore to discuss about this in the styleguide, so if disabled by default is not good then feel free to close this.

I don't think there's much to discuss about such a guideline as I thought that most people omit the redundant args, so you can safely file a PR in the style guide. I'm also not sure this should be disabled by default - probably we can leave it to the users to decide if they'd fine it useful or not.

[koic]

Style/SuperArguments seems like a better name because it is appropriately abstract. I also think this cop can start with the default Enabled: pending.

[Earlopain]

Alright, I've openend rubocop/ruby-style-guide#941, set it back to pending and renamed to SuperArguments. I also agree that name is better.

I stumbled upon an interesting interaction I wasn't really aware of with blocks, see the styleguide PR for what I'm talking about. I can't think of any changes this cop would need because of this.

[Earlopain]

Thanks for your review, I appreciate it. I should have addresses all your points

[bbatsov]

Thanks!