-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 156
Require actual version of sorbet-static-and-runtime as minimum
#1260
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
While `sorbet-static` and `sorbet-runtime` versions `0.5.9204` do exist, `0.5.9519` is the first version of `sorbet-static-and-runtime` published on RubyGems, so we cannot depend on anything lesser than that.
|
If we can bump the minimum version to |
This feature is supported from Sorbet versions 0.5.9220 onwards, and since we require at least 0.5.9519, we know it is supported.
|
@paracycle, I've added commits getting rid of a feature flag by successively bumping the version, and added a documentation comment to the now empty hash (as I imagine we want to keep it around for future use). Alternatively, I could delete all the feature checking code, if that's not something we want to keep around. |
By bumping the minimum Sorbet version, we can avoid the feature check.
By bumping the minimum Sorbet version, we can avoid the feature check.
Rather than remove the feature check code, we document it for future use.
029a352 to
f0aadd0
Compare
vinistock
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The changes look good to me. Have we verified the new generics syntax on Core?
|
I don't know about the generics syntax specifically, but trying out this branch on Core passes RBI related CI checks. It's already on Sorbet |
Motivation
While
sorbet-staticandsorbet-runtimeversions0.5.9204do exist,0.5.9519is the first version ofsorbet-static-and-runtimepublished on RubyGems, so we cannot depend on anything lesser than that.We can potentially require an even newer version, as discussed in #1252 (comment), but I'm not sure which, so I've not made that change yet.As per @paracycle's comment, I've gone ahead and further bumped the minimum version requirement to a version that allows us to get rid of our feature checks.
Implementation
This updates the version in
tapioca.gemspecand refreshesGemfile.lockaccordingly.Tests
All existing tests apply.