Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Allow RBS/Style/InitializeReturnType #2008

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 17, 2024
Merged

Allow RBS/Style/InitializeReturnType #2008

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 17, 2024

Conversation

ksss
Copy link
Collaborator

@ksss ksss commented Sep 15, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Retry #1763 .

#initialize is often overridden, but specifying a return type can be inconvenient for type checking.

The RBS/Style/InitializeReturnType cop suggests specifying void as the return type when the return type of the #initialize method is not untyped or void.

soutaro
soutaro approved these changes Sep 17, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@soutaro soutaro left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK. Let's make them void.

(cc/ @sampersand)

@soutaro soutaro added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 17, 2024
@soutaro soutaro added this to the RBS 3.6 milestone Sep 17, 2024
Merged via the queue into ruby:master with commit 6539eb4 Sep 17, 2024
19 checks passed
@ksss ksss deleted the rbs-style-initialize_return_type branch September 17, 2024 03:57
@soutaro soutaro added the Released PRs already included in the released version label Sep 17, 2024
@sampersand
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah I'm ok with this; makes sense when inheriting that overriding it would be annoying

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@soutaro soutaro soutaro approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Released PRs already included in the released version
Milestone
RBS 3.6
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@ksss @sampersand @soutaro