maint: drop support for Ruby < 2.5 and Rails < 5.0 #227
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
Old versions are starting to make CI creak under the strain of the effort it takes to maintain the matrix of old combinations. * Ruby 2.4 support was dropped 3 years ago (Mar 2020). * Rails 4.2 support was dropped 6 years ago (Apr 2017)
robbkidd
force-pushed
the
robb.what-if-we-drop-testing-ancient-to-antique-rubies
branch
from
7ef7f2c
to
ef7b7f4
Compare
MikeGoldsmith
approved these changes
Jun 6, 2023
JamieDanielson
added
version: bump minor
JamieDanielson
added
version: bump major
OK … updating TargetRubyVersion in rubocop config to Ruby 2.5 … Workin' on it. |
> Redundant begin block detected. Yup. do..end blocks have an implicit 'begin' and rescue works fine within them.
> Use 2 (not 4) spaces for indentation. Sure. Yeah.
> Extra empty line detected at block body end. Removed.
> Do not freeze immutable objects, as freezing them has no effect. Sure. Note the frozen_string_literal declaration at the top of these files.
> Use match? instead of =~ when MatchData is not used. 'match?' predicate methods introduced in Ruby 2.4 are faster than match (which is called by =~) by avoiding the creation of a MatchData object and not tracking backref.
> Use digest.unpack1("I!>") instead of digest.unpack("I!>").first
"‘String#unpack` can be replaced with the shorter method `unpack1`."
I'm just accepting this one. "Shorter" must mean the code *you* write
--for example, x.unpack("hey").first--because "unpack" on its own is 6
characters and "unpack1" is 7. :D
> Use safe navigation (&.) instead of checking if an object exists before calling the method. Personally, I don't like how safe-nav reads, but my Ruby tastes were established a long time ago. I won't fight the cop on this one.
MikeGoldsmith
approved these changes
Jun 7, 2023
|
@robbkidd are you happy for this PR to be merged now? |
|
robbkidd
deleted the
robb.what-if-we-drop-testing-ancient-to-antique-rubies
branch
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.
Which problem is this PR solving?
Old, unmaintained versions of things are starting to make the CI matrix of old combinations creak as the Ruby ecosystem starts to firmly drop support for those old, unmaintained versions.
Short description of the changes