Drop procs.rbi file back to true #5554
Merged
Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Motivation
The changes in #5525 raced with a change in Stripe's codebase that caused it to
introduce problems. Blocks can take block arguments, and we don't do a great job
of modeling that right now. It used to be fine because we would just ignore the
error when passing blocks to a
.callfunction on a proc type, because theprocs.rbi file was not
# typed: strictEventually we might want to make it possible to declare proc types that take
blocks (and for that matter: keyword args) but I'm punting on that for today.
Test plan
See included automated tests.