Document SignatureBuildOrder cop
#186
Conversation
Not having documentation means that `rubocop:todo` comments attached to the class end up erroneously treated as documentation, and the simplest way to avoid that is to document the doc, which we should be doing anyway.
sambostock
force-pushed
the
document-sig-build-order
branch
from
3c34356
to
e570049
Compare
| # - type_parameters | ||
| # - params | ||
| # - returns, or void | ||
| # - soft, checked, or on_failure |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When checking the docs for these (so I could know if they were mutually exclusive), I couldn't find the soft method in https://github.com/sorbet/sorbet/blob/4ef2b632ae1433ed1a544fd568f3481a4fc8f2df/rbi/sorbet/builder.rbi.
I did notice that there are a couple methods which we don't include in our list, which we should probably add:
finalimplementationbind
It might even be worth having a test that checks that the constant contains every method defined on T::Private::Methods::DeclBuilder... 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
soft has been renamed into on_failure a while ago but can theoretically still be found in codebases using an old Sorbet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did notice that there are a couple methods which we don't include in our list, which we should probably add:
- final
- implementation
- bind
Let's add them 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good. I've opened #189 to do that, to unblock this PR (and the subsequent ones branched off of it, and keep it about the documentation, especially since I need to figure out what implementation is and where it belongs 😅).
sambostock
force-pushed
the
document-sig-build-order
branch
from
dbbdb2c
to
e570049
Compare
Not having documentation means that
rubocop:todocomments attached to the class end up erroneously treated as documentation, and the simplest way to avoid that is to document the doc, which we should be doing anyway.See #183 for why this is relevant.