refact: drops rbs usage #122
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
after we were able to setup stable development and covered code by 92%, there is no need to support RBS files. There is a cost and complications to support RBS files up-to-date. Basically Rubymine can compare with RDoc notations which will be enough to find inconsistency
donv
approved these changes
Jul 20, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Supporting RBS files became unnecessary once we achieved stable development and covered 92% of the code.
The costs and complications associated with keeping RBS files up-to-date are significant.
Rubymine's ability to compare with YARD notations is more than capable of finding inconsistencies.