Need less entries in require.rb

[paracycle]

Motivation

Contributes to #429

As things stand right now, we need to add all gems that are marked as require: false in the Gemfile to the tapioca/require.rb file manually. If we made Bundler load those gems by default, we would not need any of those entries.

Implementation

We are able to get Bundler to load gems by tricking it to think that gems marked as require: false are actually require: true. We do that by intercepting the autorequire attr reader and changing all [] (which mean require: false) values to nil (which mean require: true).

Tests

Added a test with a gem explicitly marked as require: false, and verified that the gem is loaded and Tapioca can generate an RBI for it without needing a tapioca/require.rb entry.

[vinistock]

Nice!

[KaanOzkan]

Will this work with gems that aren't supposed to be loaded by default? For example fakefs?

An alternative solution to having those gems as require: false could be to pass them into the exclude config. I took a brief look and feels like the exclude might be handled after loading all the dependencies with bundler? If that's the case I don't see how we can circumvent fakefs issue with this feature.

[paracycle]

Will this work with gems that aren't supposed to be loaded by default? For example fakefs?

Indeed, gems like fakefs would definitely be a problem. Thanks for raising this.

An alternative solution to having those gems as require: false could be to pass them into the exclude config. I took a brief look and feels like the exclude might be handled after loading all the dependencies with bundler? If that's the case I don't see how we can circumvent fakefs issue with this feature.

Agreed, we should probably not change the default auto-require behaviour of any gem that is excluded from RBI generation.

[paracycle]

@KaanOzkan We implemented the exclusion of excluded gems from being forcibly required and updated the test to check for that too. Do you mind re-reviewing?