Do not report duplicate for shim or annotations classes redefining the superclass

Motivation

Sometimes we want to use shims to define the parent class that Tapioca may have missed. (Example 1, 2)

Consider this file generated by Tapioca for a gem:

# sorbet/rbi/gems/foo@1.0.0.rbi
class Foo
end

The user knows that Foo actually inherits from Baz and wants to fix this in a shim:

# sorbet/rbi/shims/foo.rbi
class Foo < Bar
end

Tapioca check-shims command will report a useless duplicated shims, yet this redefinition should be allowed:

          Duplicated RBI for ::Foo:
           * sorbet/rbi/shims/foo.rbi:1:0-2:3
           * sorbet/rbi/gems/foo@1.0.0.rbi:1:0-2:3

Implementation

Before reporting a shim class as a duplicate, we should check if it redefines the super class compared to the definitions we can find in the generated files.

Tests

See automated tests.

Shopify / tapioca