Adding disabled? method

[serhii-bodnaruk]

About the changes

Adding disabled? method to more comfort using Unleash.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 3836859355

• 5 of 6 (83.33%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+96.5%) to 96.514%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
lib/unleash/client.rb	4	5	80.0%

Totals
Change from base Build 3781944398:	96.5%
Covered Lines:	2132
Relevant Lines:	2209

---

💛 - Coveralls

[serhii-bodnaruk]

@sighphyre could you take a look?

[rarruda]

@sighphyre @gardleopard

Opinions?

The things I can think of:

• not a method in the other SDKs (?!), so it would make the ruby SDK a bit off compared with the API in the other SDKs. (Looked at node, Java, and python SDKs)
• Maybe the recommended solution instead of if client.disabled?("foo") would be to use the unless keyword instead unless client.enabled?("foo") (?!)
• method should be called is_disabled? with missing aliased method disabled? instead, for the sake of consistency.
• Missing opposite test, for completeness sake. (That the disabled is the opposite in both true and false scenarios).
• Missing docs in README (method description).

Wdyt?

[serhii-bodnaruk]

@rarruda
It's not looking good and well readable "unless" staff, we prefer not to use it in simple cases.
From the beginning I added the method is_disabled? but your CI and rubocop setup doesn't like it, so renamed the method and remove the alias.

I can add more tests and README, my bad. But in case you guys like the idea in general. If not we will patch it on our end, no problem. 🙏

[rarruda]

Those were my 2c/thoughts.

Let's wait for what @sighphyre and @gardleopard think/decide.

But maybe @ivarconr would want to weigh in too?

[gardleopard]

Hi, this looks good! Thank you for your contribution. We would like to see some updates in the README.md and then its good:)

[gardleopard]

Looks good, thanks for your contribution!