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

Minimally require Ruby 3.0 #16

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 18, 2023
Merged

Minimally require Ruby 3.0 #16

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 18, 2023

Conversation

kaspth
Copy link
Owner

@kaspth kaspth commented Dec 18, 2023

Looks like I just bumped to 2.7 in d9b2b01 back when I wrote the gem.

I had accidentally used a Ruby 3.0 syntax feature here

def respond_to_missing?(...) = record_klass.respond_to?(...) || super

And forgot to test on 2.7 in CI, meaning that I never caught that the gem can't load on 2.7. So we've effectively been 3.0 exclusive forever, so any users on this are already minimally on 3.0 and I'd rather bump to 3.0 since 2.7 is EOL'ed.

Looks like I just bumped to 2.7 in d9b2b01 back when I wrote the gem.

I had accidentally used a Ruby 3.0 syntax feature here
https://github.com/kaspth/active_record-associated_object/blob/9b182b3eca357f0c6620dc655005bea1a62e2db0/lib/active_record/associated_object.rb#L18

And forgot to test on 2.7 in CI, meaning that I never caught that the gem can't load on 2.7.
So we've effectively been 3.0 exclusive forever, so any users on this are already minimally on 3.0 and I'd rather bump to 3.0 since 2.7 is EOL'ed.
@kaspth kaspth merged commit 1233811 into main Dec 18, 2023
2 checks passed
@kaspth kaspth deleted the minimally-ruby-3.0 branch December 18, 2023 14:38
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.

None yet

1 participant