Highlighting does not respect my .rubocop.yml file

[JesusMarquez12]

Hello,

As the title said, the extension highlights the problems present in my Gemfile, even after i added an exclusion in the .rubocop.yml file, which is present at the root of my project folder. But when I execute the bundle exec rubocop command in my project, the exclusion are made correctly and the warning of those file are not shown in the report. I cannot determine if I missed some configuration when installing and managing the extension or if this behavior is not intended.

Here is an example of the issue:

And here is some of detailed information of my configuration:

• SO: Ubuntu 22.04.4 LTS
• Kernel: Linux 6.5.0-25-generic
• VSCode Version: 1.82.2
• Extension Version: v0.7.0
• Extension Configuration:
  
• .rubocop.yml file
• Gemfile file
• Gemfile.lock file's content related to rubocop
• bundle exec rubocop's report
• bundle exec rubocop -V's result:

  1.62.1 (using Parser 3.3.0.5, rubocop-ast 1.31.2, running on ruby 3.2.2) [x86_64-linux]
    - rubocop-performance 1.20.2
    - rubocop-rails 2.24.0

Thanks for reading my problem and I am attent to respond any question or details that may be needed to clarify the situation

[jandresrodriguez]

Same thing is happening to me

[jhoward15]

Same here

[JeSuisUnCaillou]

Same here

[jonleighton]

I have this same problem when running rubocop inside a Docker container.

On that project, I am able to work around the problem by setting the rubocop.commandPath setting (in VSCode) to add -c .rubocop.yml (which makes the path to the configuration file explicit).

I have tried to debug it a little bit, and I suspect it's happening because the document path on the host machine is passed down to the Docker container via LSP (in the uri field of PublishDiagnosticsParams). This path does not exist within the Docker container.

I suspect that RuboCop uses this path to try to traverse up the filesystem to find a .rubocop.yml. Because the path doesn't exist, it can't find a valid .rubocop.yml.

In my project, we also have devcontainers configured. When I run the extension inside the devcontainer, I don't have a problem. This further validates my theory about where the problem lies.