-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 101
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Optional use of require_relative #240
Comments
Can you describe a little more what benefit you feel this would provide? |
👍 on this or an alternative I'll propose. I have protobufs which I inherit from upstream reverse engineering efforts. My generated code is packaged in a different gem (as a dependency because it changes independently), but I want it to share the same top-level The proto files are organized like so:
I organize the output manually after compiling with
Works wonderfully until I try to require the files. This is because Strict adoption of ruby namespacing rules--that is, that module code should be organized hierarchically in folders corresponding to their modules--would make And this or similar is probably why @daBrado asked about Thoughts? |
In case any of you is more curious about my use-case, it's here. You can see how I have to torture things to get them to compile in scripts |
👍 for this as well. It would already be nice to be able to store the A PR on this should be quite straightforward, I'm willing to work on this if people are interested |
@tdeo Feel free to open a PR that supports both options if you're interested. I'd be happy to take a look. I'm not motivated to make the change but I'd be happy to merge a good solution :) |
Would it be desirable to optionally have the generated ruby code use
require_relative
(in place of the defaultrequire
) to bring in other ruby code generated in a given protoc run?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: