Run CI on GitHub Actions

[dsander]

Ruby 2.3 has some strange openssl version mismatch issue on GitHub
Actions. The rugged gem itself installs fine but when it loads it's C
extensions it somehow loads the wrong openssl version. Running the specs
interactively (even on GitHub Actions) works without issues.

Sorry for the commit mess, getting this to work(ish) was harder than expected. I think the Actions are not run in the PR because I am not a maintainer, The output can be checked here: https://github.com/dsander/pronto/actions/runs/523525169

Sadly I have no clue how we can get the tests on Ruby 2.3 to work.

Rubocop comments are working: dsander#1

Labeled as draft because the switch might mean to drop CI for Ruby 2.3.

[ashkulz]

Did you try running without bundle exec? Also, what's the version of bundler on the Ruby 2.3 run -- maybe you specifically need to use a version to enable support for such an old version?

[ashkulz]

@dsander I'm open to dropping Ruby 2.3 support -- I think Ruby 2.5 is going to be EOL in a few months, so makes sense to drop something which can't run in CI. What do you think? I don't want to keep Travis CI just for the 2.3 support.

[dsander]

Did you try running without bundle exec? Also, what's the version of bundler on the Ruby 2.3 run -- maybe you specifically need to use a version to enable support for such an old version?

I don't think bundler is at fault here, the gems load without issues. I think what happens is that rugged builds it's bundled libgit against the correct - bundled with ruby 2.3 - openssl 1.0 library. Something,, for some reason then loads system installed openssl 1.1 library at runtime and segfaults. This issue seems to describe the same problem libgit2/rugged#718.

I don't even know where to point the finger, is it the github action stack, the ruby/setup-ruby action, rugged, the way rugged compiles libgit, how ruby builds C extensions or how ruby/C loads libraries?

What makes things worse, I have no clue is why everything works normally when the specs are run interactively "inside" the action when connecting to it via ssh.

@dsander I'm open to dropping Ruby 2.3 support -- I think Ruby 2.5 is going to be EOL in a few months, so makes sense to drop something which can't run in CI. What do you think? I don't want to keep Travis CI just for the 2.3 support.

More than happy to drop it, 2.3 is EOL for almost two years, so hopefully not many people are still using it 😄

[dsander]

If we drop Ruby 2.3 from CI, the rubocop version is also bumped (or we need to enforce the older version in the gemspec. It not complains about new cops not being enabled: https://github.com/dsander/pronto/runs/1800709555?check_suite_focus=true#step:5:11

I don't think enabling all new cops is an option because everyone runs a different rubocop version locally

[ashkulz]

I think we should leave Ruby 2.3 in, but explicitly exclude it like done for pronto-haml, so that it's present in the definition and is documented why it fails but doesn't actually get run -- using continue-on-error isn't great, see actions/runner#2347

[dsander]

I think we should leave Ruby 2.3 in, but explicitly exclude it like done for pronto-haml, so that it's present in the definition and is documented why it fails but doesn't actually get run

Sure, that works as well. I thought you were implying dropping Ruby 2.3 support all together.

[ashkulz]

Thanks for your patience, @dsander! Sorry if I wasn't clear above, I definitely didn't mean to drop Ruby 2.3 support immediately -- that would mean the next release would've to be 0.12.0 (as it's a breaking change).

[ashkulz]

Can you also remove .travis.yml as part of this PR? I think we're good to go, otherwise 👍

[ashkulz]

Thanks, @dsander! Sorry about not merging this earlier 🙁