Thoughts on Adding RBS Signatures to Bunny

[matias-martini]

Hi everyone! 👋

I wanted to start a conversation about RBS and see what the community thinks about it. It would be really nice to have this gem typed, especially for projects that depend on Bunny.

Before diving into any implementation, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Would adding RBS be something worth exploring for Bunny? Are there any concerns or challenges that come to mind?

I appreciate any feedback and insights you might have!

Thanks!

[michaelklishin]

@matias-martini I'm all for adopting gradual typing and static analysis but I haven't looked at RBS and do not understand what kind of limitations and downsides it might bring.

[matias-martini]

The nice thing about RBS is that it doesn’t change how the gem itself works—it just provides type signatures that external tools (like linters or type checkers) can use. It’s completely opt-in, so it won’t break anything for people who don’t use it.

I totally understand that RBS is still fairly new in the ecosystem, and not every Ruby dev has had a chance to dive into it yet. That said, Ruby maintainers are pushing it pretty hard, and if you create a new gem through bundle, the /sig directory is now included by default as a starting point for writing signatures.

That said, I don’t want to push something that doesn’t align with the project’s direction. If you’re open to it, I could put together a small draft PR with some core type definitions to see how it feels in practice (when I find the time 😅).

[michaelklishin]

I have no objections whatsoever, please submit a PR or a series of PRs (e.g. starting with the simpler classes) :)