Track proc bindings of existing signatures #1064
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
paracycle
reviewed
Jul 15, 2022
vinistock
force-pushed
the
vs/track_proc_bindings
branch
from
b6c812a
to
f64ffcb
Compare
Morriar
reviewed
Jul 15, 2022
Morriar
approved these changes
Jul 15, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
When we generate gem RBIs, we're not carrying over proc bindings from existing signatures. The reason is because
sorbet-runtimedoesn't actually keep track of the bind and just discards it.This ends up creating some frustration when generating gem RBIs as proc bindings are ignored.
Implementation
Add a new Sorbet patch to keep track of the bind and print the
T::Types::Procname including it.Tests
Added an example in the pipeline spec.