Remove respond_to? check

[tiagomenegaz]

What are you trying to accomplish?

This PR removes respond_to? from the following files:

• app/controllers/concerns/view_component/preview_actions.rb
• lib/view_component/base.rb
• lib/view_component/collection.rb
• lib/view_component/slotable.rb
• lib/view_component/slotable_default.rb
• lib/view_component/translatable.rb
• test/sandbox/test/rendering_test.rb
• test/sandbox/test/slotable_test.rb
• view_component.gemspec

Most of the changes were done by refactoring respond_to? to class.method_defined which is an alternative to that method. Please feel free to discuss these changes.

What approach did you choose and why?

Some checks aren't necessary because we don't support discontinued Ruby versions and the code can be written without respond_to?.

Anything you want to highlight for special attention from reviewers?

I noticed that some respond_to? are being used to support ruby2_keywords. I'm assuming it exists because we want to support old ruby versions. However, based on the gemfile - ruby_version = (ENV["RUBY_VERSION"] || "~> 3.4").to_s - we don't support Ruby 2 anymore. I'll address these keywords in a different PR.

[tiagomenegaz]

Maybe this change goes against this project's code style? 🤔

[reeganviljoen]

@tiagomenegaz Firstly, thank you for this work 😄
I wonder what the performance difference is. Are you able to run the benchmarks with and without this and post the results here?

[tiagomenegaz]

@tiagomenegaz Firstly, thank you for this work 😄 I wonder what the performance difference is. Are you able to run the benchmarks with and without this and post the results here?

No problem. Any recommendations for that? @reeganviljoen

[BlakeWilliams]

I feel like there's context I'm missing. What's the reasoning behind this change?

[joelhawksley]

@BlakeWilliams I looked at some of these with @tiagomenegaz. We were looking to see if we could get rid of these checks wholesale as many were implicitly for older versions of Rails. I'll review this!

[joelhawksley]

Closing in favor of #2219, added you as co-author!

[tiagomenegaz]

Closing in favor of #2219, added you as co-author!

Thanks for letting me know @joelhawksley