Also, the page title (<title>) still mentions "Tailwind UI", which seems like it should be updated after the rename 😉

Well, in my experience AI can’t write decent tests 😛

It doesn’t seem to think of reusing factories/fixtures, at least not fully.

Even with Bundler checksums enabled? 🙂

We only have paid gems vendored for conveniece (Sidekiq/graphql-ruby Pro). But I always wished they waren’t commited to source control, because I want to treat them as external.

How is that different from installing gems? Why don’t we vendor gems then?

That part where I need to commit source code for a 3rd-party package into version control.

OK, I guess Sorbet also does dynamic typechecking then.

What would you dislike about moving those type annotations into comments? I feel like you’d still write similar amount of code, unlike with RBS header files where you need to repeat method and class definitions.

I watched the demo, and while impressive, I would like to not have a different method syntax.

Also, inline RBS supports static typechecking from what I understand, while I imagine this is only for runtime typechecking.

I also don’t like the look of those leading underscores 🙈

I haven’t personally experienced many issues with environments differing, so it’s not a problem I’m eager to have solved.

What is it about?

It reminds me of me with HTTP/2, where by the time I started getting it and looking how to support it, h3 had already came out 😄

To be clear, I'm referring to `ActionController::Base._prefixes` method. It's technically public, but the name indicates it maybe shouldn't be used.

It seems I will do that in Ruby LSP land after all. I couldn't think of a sane interface for retrieving view prefixes from controller, and `_prefixes` seems kind of like private API anyway.

Given that retrieving arguments of a `render` call is fairly easy, it makes sense for me that both Ruby LSP Rails and Herb do it, just for different purposes.

Ruby LSP Rails would use it to follow partial names, while Herb would use it for linting. So, I imagine them having different code.

Absolutely, linting sounds like it should live entirely in the Herb language server. AFAIK Ruby LSP doesn't have knowledge of where we are in the ERB file.

Prism nodes contain location info, but I would assume they don't point to the actual location in the template.

Yeah, that sounds useful in scenarios where "go to definition" should lead to specific part of the HTML+ERB template.

In my case, I just link to the start of the partial file.

I like that Ruby LSP abstracts ERB away from me, so I only need to check the file extension. This could then theoretically work in pure Ruby templates as well, and possibly jbuilder, it's not tied to HTML+ERB files.

Is there an advantage of doing it within Herb?