3.8.2 release #2067
3.8.2 release #2067
Conversation
* Truncate method names further in system tests ref: https://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails/pull/1999/files If system test fails, a screenshot is taken, but if the file name exceeds 255 characters(e.g. using turnip), the following error will be output. ``` File name too long @ rb_sysopen ``` The file name is prepended with `failures_` so further truncation is needed.
|
@benoittgt this looks great to me! Is there any chance you could add this checklist to the wiki on rspec-dev, so we have it for next time? (you can use x-y-maintenance to represent major and minor, instead of 3-8-maintenance) |
|
@benoittgt this is going to be a party... you'll need the signing key for the RSpec gem, the password, and release bits on rubygems. @JonRowe I don't have the key on the computer I'm currently travelling with. Could you email it to both me and @benoittgt? @benoittgt do you have a GPG key? If so I'll sign and encrypt the password for the RSpec signing key and send it over to you with instructions. @JonRowe do we have the procedure for setting your keys up documented somewhere? |
Changelog.md
Outdated
| * Use `__dir__` instead of `__FILE__` in generated `rails_helper.rb` where | ||
| supported. (OKURA Masafumi, #2048) | ||
| * Add `have_enqueued` matcher as a "super" matcher to the `ActiveJob` matchers | ||
| making it easier to match on `ActiveJob` delivered emails (Joel Lubrano, #2047) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@benoittgt we don't typically release enhancements in a patch release, so these should be removed
benoittgt
force-pushed
the
3-8-maintenance-prep
branch
from
c188968
to
25e69ef
Compare
@samphippen except this I don't see any github wiki of place where it could be added. 馃 https://github.com/rspec/rspec-dev/blob/8b5a2ba438bb442861c43971f6378d5cd2a94d77/common_markdown_files/CONTRIBUTING.md.erb#L35 I just sent my PGP key to you and @JonRowe by email. Thanks for the review! |
|
@samphippen I'm not sure we do, my "documentation" is an email you sent me explaining it 馃槀 |
|
LGTM @benoittgt I recommend you merge and then release in short order. |
|
@benoittgt can we add #2069 to this |
|
The problem with #2069 is that we don't add #2047 in this patch release. So https://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails/pull/2069/files#diff-22e10b416305c8e9a9b607039ccfe28d is "deleted by us" when cherry picking. I can backport this fix to work on code present in 3.8.2 and add a changelog specific for that. What do you think? Otherwise, we don't add it to this release. |
|
I'd backport it as a PR to your branch keep the changelog but refer to the extra PR |
This is a partial backport of rspec#2069 that doesn't include changes on "have_enqueued_mail" tests. When expecting no job to be enqueued, the matcher would expect exactly one job not to have been enqueued. This commit changes so that it now expects no jobs to have been enqueued.
benoittgt
force-pushed
the
3-8-maintenance-prep
branch
from
25e69ef
to
6e2db4d
Compare
|
Ok backported. Commit order is different here https://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails/pull/2067/commits VS here https://github.com/benoittgt/rspec-rails/commits/3-8-maintenance-prep 馃 |
|
Github sometimes displays commit in time, and not "Commit" order, it could be that? |
benoittgt
force-pushed
the
3-8-maintenance-prep
branch
from
6e2db4d
to
987bd32
Compare
|
Yes maybe. I sent a support request. |
|
It seems ok now. |
|
@samphippen Still interested to do #2067 (comment) 馃槉 |
This resolves #2066
Because this is my first time, I prefere to open a pull request to validate step by step. 馃槉
Checklist:
3-8-maintenance3-8-maintenance, editing changefile as necessaryrake release VERSION=3.8.2with an account that has credentials logged in3-8-maintenance