Open Bo98 opened 3 years ago
@Bo98 Is there any known workarounds? I'm having the same issue.
Apologies it's taken me so long to respond to this! I totally missed the notification the first time around, it was the new comment which brought this back into my inbox.
I agree this should merge fine, I'll look into fixing this up.
@Bo98 @vaporyhumo As a workaround, you could use a .parlour
file to tell the parser to include only the RBI files you'd like to merge together, which will exclude those Ruby files which it's conflicting with:
output_file:
rbi: output.rbi
parser:
included_paths:
- ./lib/mod.rbi
Awesome, thanks!
Describe the bug Sometimes type signatures are not defined inline in the main code but are defined in a separate RBI file with the same name.
For example: a file called
mod.rb
, which itself has a# typed: strict
comment, might not actually have any type signatures stored inline but instead may have it inmod.rbi
that sits alongside.To Reproduce Create a
mod.rb
with the following contents:Then create a
mod.rbi
with the following contents:Note that
srb tc
will pass without errors here - it picks up the RBI and merges the type signatures into the main file.Expected behavior The Parlour conflict resolver handles this without errors.
Actual behavior
Additional information Parlour 6.0.0