Closed alexneverpo closed 3 years ago
In addition, if this PR looks good, should I create another PR to bump the version?
Thanks, Alex. Upgrading Sorbet and Tapioca is fine, but I'm not sure about deleting the sorbet-typed
RBIs. Contrary to the wiki link you posted, they're generated by srb rbi sorbet-typed
, not srb rbi gems
, and therefore are more trustworthy.
But we should probably have a more permissive version expression for Sorbet in our gemspec.
But we should probably have a more permissive version expression for Sorbet in our gemspec.
Yes. I set it this way on gemspec but put a fixed version on Gemfile. Totally missed it. Thanks!
Contrary to the wiki link you posted, they're generated by srb rbi sorbet-typed, not srb rbi gems, and therefore are more trustworthy.
From the definition of sorbet-typed
, we can learn that it's a manual process to update the rbis of a gem and only has rough version management. Take the activesupport
for example, it contains only two major releases, >= 6
and all
. We have no way of knowing which version specifically they're referring to. https://github.com/sorbet/sorbet-typed/tree/master/lib/activesupport
The rbis copied from sorbet-typed
would even have conflicts with the rbis generated via tapioca based on parsing the specific gems installed on your local env.
Whatever unblocks you is fine.
sorbet-typed
rbis in favor oftapioca
generated rbis (See: tapioca wiki)The main reason I want to do this is that currently, the gem locks the sorbet version to be
6338
, which prevents us from upgrading sorbet version in our codebase.