Skip RBS rewrite when no markers are present#2616
Draft
Conversation
mattkubej
force-pushed
the
rbs-marker-guard
branch
from
c06244a to
3ad4466
Compare
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
Avoid running Spoom's RBS-to-Sorbet-sig translator for typed Ruby files that cannot contain runtime-rewriteable RBS syntax.
Tapioca currently calls
Spoom::Sorbet::Translate.rbs_comments_to_sorbet_sigsfor every typed Ruby file loaded through the RBS rewriter. A large portion of typed files in Core do not contain RBS signatures or supported RBS annotations, so the translator often parses source only to return it unchanged.This keeps the existing
typed:gate and adds a conservative marker gate. Translation now runs only when source contains one of:#:#|# @abstract# @interface# @sealed# @final# @requires_ancestor:# @override# @overridable# @without_runtimeFalse positives are safe because they still use the existing translator. False negatives would be unsafe, so the annotation list is intentionally aligned with Spoom's currently supported runtime-rewrite annotations.