gempsec allows incompatible versions of ruby #559

Activity

1. rellampec commented on Nov 5, 2024

   

   rellampec

   on Nov 5, 2024

   More actions

   Lost support for ruby 2.x.x

   Line of the error

   /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.7.0/gems/ice_cube-0.17.0/lib/ice_cube/schedule.rb:163: syntax error, unexpected ')', expecting local variable or method (SyntaxError)
       def each_occurrence(&)
                            ^
   /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.7.0/gems/ice_cube-0.17.0/lib/ice_cube/schedule.rb:164: syntax error, unexpected ')'
   ...rate_occurrences(start_time, &).to_a
   ...                              ^
   /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.7.0/gems/ice_cube-0.17.0/lib/ice_cube/schedule.rb:502: syntax error, unexpected `end', expecting end-of-input
   
2. pacso commented on Nov 6, 2024

   

   pacso

   on Nov 6, 2024

   Collaborator

   More actions

   Whilst we build and test for the current supported versions of Ruby (https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/downloads/branches/) we do not (currently) prevent use with other versions. If you feel this should be the case, we can update the gemspec to specify the supported versions of Ruby.
3. scpike commented on Nov 6, 2024

   

   scpike

   on Nov 6, 2024

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   @pacso Since you can't retroactively update the gemspec for 0.17 I just wanted to report what I ran into here for anyone who is searching. I think it's pretty split in the community whether it's best practice for gemspecs to have strict upper bounds on their dependencies. You can cause more trouble than it's worth if you limit the bounds too much and then people are left waiting for you to release a patch before they can upgrade.

   It could be helpful to users with old codebases to avoid using the anonymous block argument feature in library code since there are backwards compatible ways to work around it, and it's not improving performance (see the comment about it in the link I shared).

   👍React with 👍1Reacted by Jon Pascoe
4. pacso commented on Nov 6, 2024

   

   pacso

   on Nov 6, 2024

   Collaborator

   More actions

   Thanks @scpike. If you're keen to improve our backwards compatibility feel free to ping over a PR and I'll review it 👍🏻
5. scpike commented on Nov 6, 2024

   

   scpike

   on Nov 6, 2024

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   I put up a PR at #562. I then realized it's identical to #561 except that I widened the set of ruby versions being tested against.
6. scpike commented on Nov 6, 2024

   

   scpike

   on Nov 6, 2024

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   Just for a little more context here - I'm not suggesting that it's a good thing to stay on old versions of Ruby. This came up for me because my company upgrades Ruby/Rails apps, and we often deal with large projects that are pretty deep in a hole. We strongly prefer to do upgrades incrementally and in small pieces, so for example we'd much prefer to upgrade ice_cube and ruby independently, rather than coupling them together in the same PR. That's why I pointed out 0.16.4 above since it's a version of ice_cube that's dual-compatible.