Switch to Package URI for source location comments #2480
Conversation
paracycle
added
enhancement
| @@ -0,0 +1,416 @@ | |||
| # typed: false | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be easier to import the gem under a vendor/ directory so it can be updated using the command line rather than copying files?
Maybe we should also avoid re-namespacing it under Tapioca?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be easier to import the gem under a
vendor/directory so it can be updated using the command line rather than copying files?
The upstream file has has only 2 changes in the last 5 years, so I doubt this will be a problem for us going forward.
Maybe we should also avoid re-namespacing it under
Tapioca?
I do want to re-namespace it under Tapioca. If the upstream gem gets loaded along with Tapioca, not changing the namespace will result in various constant redefinition warnings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Forgot to include a link to file changes upstream: https://github.com/package-url/packageurl-ruby/commits/main/lib/package_url.rb
|
This is tagged "breaking change", what's the nature of the break? |
If the end-user isn't using a recent enough version of Ruby LSP, they won't have support for purl formatted comments and their source url navigation will break. |
paracycle
force-pushed
the
uk-switch-to-package-uri
branch
from
0f78e5c to
bbdd6a2
Compare
paracycle
force-pushed
the
uk-switch-to-package-uri
branch
from
bbdd6a2 to
1011c4f
Compare
4 participants
Motivation
Follow up to Shopify/ruby-lsp#3807
Implementation
package_url.rb:characters insubpathto not be URL encodedTests
Update existing tests