Create a cop to validate gem version annotations in RBI files #199
Conversation
egiurleo
force-pushed
the
emily/valid-rbi-version-annotations
branch
from
029c92d
to
436eddc
Compare
lib/rubocop/cop/sorbet/rbi_versioning/valid_gem_version_annotations.rb
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
spec/rubocop/cop/sorbet/rbi_versioning/valid_gem_version_annotations_spec.rb
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
This PR has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
|
This PR has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
|
This PR has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
|
This PR has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
egiurleo
force-pushed
the
emily/valid-rbi-version-annotations
branch
from
436eddc
to
477c2b0
Compare
egiurleo
changed the title
egiurleo
force-pushed
the
emily/valid-rbi-version-annotations
branch
from
477c2b0
to
f0424ea
Compare
lib/rubocop/cop/sorbet/rbi_versioning/valid_gem_version_annotations.rb
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
lib/rubocop/cop/sorbet/rbi_versioning/valid_gem_version_annotations.rb
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
egiurleo
force-pushed
the
emily/valid-rbi-version-annotations
branch
from
f0424ea
to
b9fa1da
Compare
egiurleo
force-pushed
the
emily/valid-rbi-version-annotations
branch
from
b9fa1da
to
eaeba24
Compare
|
@Morriar Great question -- how do you generally think about what goes in the same Rubocop rule vs different rules? Like I could imagine that being in a rule called "NoOrphanedVersionAnnotations" or something like that? |
|
@egiurleo I think it would be better in the same cop but we can merge this now and iterate in another PR 👍 |
lib/rubocop/cop/sorbet/rbi_versioning/gem_version_annotation_helper.rb
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
|
||
| if gem_versions.empty? | ||
| message = format(MSG, versions: "empty version") | ||
| add_offense(comment, message: message) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm assuming this cop will be enabled in rbi-central. Have we considered having the default case not error to make the onboarding easier (both here and in rbi logic)? Or do we want to manually add versions to existing annotations?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh this is only if someone writes # @version but then doesn't actually provide any version numbers! Any code without any comment or a different comment will be left alone :)
lib/rubocop/cop/sorbet/rbi_versioning/valid_gem_version_annotations.rb
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
While adding gem version annotations to RBI files would allow developers to write more comprehensive RBIs for their gems, it has has the potential to create RBI files that are cluttered, disorganized, or incorrect. This would be the first of a few cops meant to keep versioned RBIs clean and accurate. This cop checks that every version included in a "@Version" annotation fits the format specified by the RBI library.
egiurleo
force-pushed
the
emily/valid-rbi-version-annotations
branch
from
eaeba24
to
3cffa24
Compare
Created as part of hackdays, along with Shopify/rbi#180 and Shopify/tapioca#1585
While adding gem version annotations to RBI files would allow developers to write more comprehensive RBIs for their gems, it has has the potential to create RBI files that are cluttered, disorganized, or incorrect.
This would be the first of a few cops meant to keep versioned RBIs clean and accurate.
This cop checks that every version included in a "@Version" annotation fits the format specified by the RBI library.