Use File.exist? instead of File.exists? #471
Merged
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
sergioisidoro
approved these changes
Jan 29, 2022
|
Looks good. The fact that the tests are not failing in master, now that we added Ruby 3.1 in CI, indicates our coverage is not ideal. If anyone wants to contribute to a test case on this it would be appreciated :) |
|
Triggered new run here: Edit: All passed. 🟢 Thank you! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It seems Ruby 3.1 will remove File.exists? which has been obsolete for quite some time.
This fixes the deprecation warning:
rswag-ui-2.4.0/lib/rswag/ui/middleware.rb:40: warning: File.exists? is deprecated; use File.exist? insteadFile.exist? already exists since ruby 1.8.7: https://ruby-doc.org/core-1.8.7/File.html#method-c-exist-3F