Skip to content
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

Fix Rspec workflow in CI, add Rails 8 to matrix #254

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 28, 2025
Merged

Conversation

lhoBas
Copy link
Contributor

@lhoBas lhoBas commented Jan 26, 2025

What is the purpose of this pull request?

fd67403 fixes the Rspec matrix in CI - this was broken in 2023, as the env variable to set the gemfile was added to other workflow files, but not the rsped one.

dfd2b27 modernizes the workflow (no need to manually install libpq anymore)

83480a8 adds Rails 8 to the matrix and modernizes the ruby/postgres versions the gem is tested with.

77d350f is needed due to rails/rails#54263, don't think it is desirable to merge.

What changes did you make? (overview)

Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?

The specs fail against Rails master, unsure how to fix atm.

Checklist

  • I've added tests for this change
  • I've added a Changelog entry
  • I've updated a documentation (Readme)

Copy link
Owner

@palkan palkan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks a lot!

Just on minor comment regarding concurrent-ruby.

And don't worry about CI failures for Rails head.

logidze.gemspec Outdated
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
rails_version = ">= 6.0"
spec.add_dependency "railties", rails_version
spec.add_dependency "activerecord", rails_version
spec.add_dependency "concurrent-ruby", "1.3.4"
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's make a development dependency for now; we shouldn't freeze indirect dependencies for end users, and for us that would be enough.

And could you please add a comment with the link to the issue? (So we can drop it as it's resolved)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

will do!

@lhoBas lhoBas requested a review from palkan January 28, 2025 10:57
@palkan palkan merged commit 0fbc9d7 into palkan:master Jan 28, 2025
11 of 12 checks passed
@palkan
Copy link
Owner

palkan commented Jan 28, 2025

Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants