Document exporting signatures using rbi/ folder
#1792
Conversation
README.md
Outdated
| @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ Tapioca makes it easy to work with [Sorbet](https://sorbet.org) in your codebase | |||
| * [Excluding a gem from RBI generation](#excluding-a-gem-from-rbi-generation) | |||
| * [Changing the strictness level of the RBI for a gem](#changing-the-strictness-level-of-the-rbi-for-a-gem) | |||
| * [Keeping RBI files for gems up-to-date](#keeping-rbi-files-for-gems-up-to-date) | |||
| * [Exporting signatures using `rbi/` folder](#exporting-signatures-using-rbi-folder) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All of our documentation is written from the point of view of the consumer of types via RBI files, but this topic is written from the gem author's point of view, which is confusing.
I think what we are really trying to say here, for Tapioca users, is that Tapioca can use the signatures exported from gems in rbi/ folders. So, I think we should word this, and the paragraph below to read that way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My thought process was that "users" of this feature are the gem authors, unlike other features. I don't have strong opinions, I can reword it to importing and make it explicit what gem author has to do and what gem user has to do.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The case for gem authors, and the fact that they can export an /rbi folder is already documented by Sorbet. I think we should be documenting that Tapioca will automatically import and merge those signatures when the gem exports them. Also, that one can opt out of that behaviour using the --no-exported-gem-rbis flag.
KaanOzkan
force-pushed
the
ko/rbi-folder-readme
branch
from
5f6e9ea
to
22675a9
Compare
KaanOzkan
force-pushed
the
ko/rbi-folder-readme
branch
from
047e3d2
to
a61948d
Compare
KaanOzkan
force-pushed
the
ko/rbi-folder-readme
branch
from
a61948d
to
f054995
Compare
Motivation
Looking at the implementation I don't think this is documented anywhere.
Implementation
Tests