(maint) Fix Gem::Platform.match() deprecation warning #1408
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jhbuchanan45
force-pushed
the
maint_fix_platform_match_deprecation_warning
branch
from
9d7f2a5
to
84de4ec
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1408 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.49% 88.49%
=======================================
Files 127 127
Lines 5320 5320
=======================================
Hits 4708 4708
Misses 612 612 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
This LGTM, once I get the pipelines fixed up will test this out and merge |
… Gem::Platform.match_spec?
david22swan
force-pushed
the
maint_fix_platform_match_deprecation_warning
branch
from
84de4ec
to
ff2ce5a
Compare
|
Pipeline validate has passed so good to merge |
david22swan
approved these changes
Oct 29, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
I've tested this locally on PEADM, but I'm not 100% certain this is a 1-1 swap. Based on the ruby implementation they should be calling the same function under the hood.
Related Issues (if any)
Closes #1406
Checklist