allow memoize to take multiple method names

[nevinera]

Purpose

I'm performing the upgrade to ruby-3 on a large rails project, and we used Memoist heavily. Memoist hasn't updated to support memoizing with keyword arguments in ruby 3 yet, and it looks like it might be quite difficult to do so - there have been outstanding tickets for roughly that feature for years now.

Swapping Memery in instead has been mostly seamless, but its lack of support for memoize :foo, :bar, :baz is forcing updates to several hundred files (some of our engineers disliked memoize def foo, because they felt it was too "java-ey").

Original Internal Patch

I initially just wrote a prepend-patch for my own project to support it:

# frozen_string_literal: true

module Memery
  module PluralSupportingClassMethods
    def memoize(*method_names, **kwargs)
      method_names.each do |method_name|
        super(method_name, **kwargs)
      end
    end
  end
end

Memery::ClassMethods.send(:prepend, Memery::PluralSupportingClassMethods)

And I'm happy to continue to use that.. but I figured I'd check if you were interested in adopting the change upstream.

Specs

The code change is fairly trivial, but I didn't feel like the existing test-suite structure made it easy to exercise the change - let me know if you have a preference for test structure here I should update to match (or feel free to take the PR and just rewrite it as you prefer. I have the time, but I know communication is frequently more work than coding).

[nevinera]

No interest, @tycooon?

[tycooon]

Sorry, looks like I missed this PR somehow.

[tycooon]

It also looks like you have some uncovered code in the specs.

[nevinera]

It also looks like you have some uncovered code in the specs.

Hmm. I didn't originally, maybe the specs I just removed did matter :-\

Edit: Oh! uncovered spec lines, I see :-)
Sorry, I'm not used to having coverage run against those at all. Does seem useful for finding unnecessary code!

[tycooon]

I am ready to merge, but rubocop is not happy with empty block (and I agree with that).

[nevinera]

hmm, that's interesting. I ran rubocop locally, but apparently that doesn't execute the same checks your CI is performing. That's awkward - I can't define a method with an empty body, but if I put anything in the body, it'll show up as non-executed code for your coverage system :-\

Ah, I'll define those methods via attr_reader instead :-)

[nevinera]

Thanks for your attention! I'll look forward to deleting one of the many monkey-patches I've had to make updating to ruby3 :-)