Skip to content

Conversation

@KaanOzkan
Copy link
Contributor

@KaanOzkan KaanOzkan commented May 26, 2025

Motivation

It's an RBS comment that will be translated in gem RBIs into a requires_ancestor call. We don't need it as part of documentation and it results in type checking errors.

Implementation

Add it to the existing ignored comments list

Tests

@KaanOzkan KaanOzkan requested a review from a team as a code owner May 26, 2025 17:52
@KaanOzkan KaanOzkan changed the title Ignore @requires_ancestor in YardDoc listener Ignore @requires_ancestor in YardDoc listener May 26, 2025
Copy link
Member

@vinistock vinistock left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need to do it for other annotations on top of classes? E.g.: @interface, @abstract

@KaanOzkan
Copy link
Contributor Author

KaanOzkan commented May 26, 2025

Do we need to do it for other annotations on top of classes? E.g.: @interface, @abstract

Good question, I should have mentioned it in the description. YARD seems to pick up @requires_ancestor: because it has a :, so the others aren't an issue for now and I didn't add them.

It's an RBS comment that will be translated in gem RBIs into
a `requires_ancestor` call.
@KaanOzkan KaanOzkan merged commit 5443ee6 into main May 26, 2025
17 checks passed
@KaanOzkan KaanOzkan deleted the ko/yard-rbs branch May 26, 2025 20:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants