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

Rails 6.0 #503

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 11, 2021
Merged

Rails 6.0 #503

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 11, 2021

Conversation

NickLaMuro
Copy link
Member

@NickLaMuro NickLaMuro mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2020
39 tasks
@NickLaMuro NickLaMuro changed the title Rails 6.0 [WIP] Rails 6.0 Nov 4, 2020
@miq-bot miq-bot added the wip label Nov 4, 2020
@@ -20,8 +20,8 @@ Gem::Specification.new do |s|

s.required_ruby_version = "> 2.4"

s.add_runtime_dependency "activerecord", "< 5.3"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see why we would, as this isn't a gem that ever needs to be released, and is only used by ManageIQ/manageiq, which now requires Rails 6. The only place where I think this does make sense is in gems that are released to rubygems.org or rubygems.manageiq.org which this is not.

(This is going to be a carbon copy answer that I will be pasting in all provider repos where this comment exists)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I look at manageiq-gems-pending as a regular gem, but we don't push it to rubygems.org because it's not a single well thought out thing that is generically usable by other people. However, now that we have rubygems.manageiq.org, I would seriously consider pushing it there and acting like it is a real gem.

On that note, I don't know why there is a dependency on activerecord here. I don't see it required by anything in the repo, only mentioned in some documentation. I opened #504 to remove it.

activesupport is used in a couple places and I think we could loosen the dependency on it like we would in a regular gem.

@Fryguy thoughts on pushing this to rubygems.manageiq.org?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Side note... These comments should not hold this up, I'm trying to make it easier to get your PRs (and similar ones in the future) merged.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I never though about gems-pending being released, but that is a really interesting idea! I don't think we can release the rest of the plugin gems, but gems-pending is different as it's a bit more stable commit-wise and we'll likely only really keep removing things (semver wise, this gem is going to get a lot of major releases 😆 )

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That being said, that's even more of a reason to have a "real" release.

@Fryguy I would argue it is a reason to break out the code it does depend on into something that is less of a "junk drawer" repo and something more focused. I still tend to view this repo as "things we never really got around to making there own gems, or things that should have stayed in lib/ in ManageIQ/manageiq".

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm trying to make it easier to get your PRs (and similar ones in the future) merged.

@bdunne well... if that really is the case, #504 really didn't help my cause [ref]:

@miq-bot

This pull request is not mergeable. Please rebase and repush.

Copy link
Member Author

@NickLaMuro NickLaMuro Dec 8, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I look at manageiq-gems-pending as a regular gem, but we don't push it to rubygems.org because it's not a single well thought out thing that is generically usable by other people.

Fair, if we do want to go that route, I guess I am not opposed to the idea since it is one less git gem in our bundle, and this is used by a few things where having a non-git gem would be helpful.

That said, I am trying to avoid loose dependencies on stuff that is only intended to be used by "us", since it can just make things confusing when it comes to integrating this in ManageIQ and trying to bundle.

Edit: That said, I would rather go that #231 route and remove this gem entirely, which moving this to release on rubygems.manageiq.org just gets us further away from that.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we're all on board with deleting it via #231 but it's a large effort that will likely take a while (already a multi-year effort). I also don't think that pushing it to rubygems.manageiq.org gets us any further from deleting it. And if it helps us loosen dependencies (and reduce bundler conflicts), I think that's a step forward.

@Fryguy Fryguy self-assigned this Dec 8, 2020
@miq-bot
Copy link
Member

miq-bot commented Dec 8, 2020

Checked commit NickLaMuro@d2bf48c with ruby 2.6.3, rubocop 0.82.0, haml-lint 0.35.0, and yamllint
0 files checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks fine. 🍪

@NickLaMuro NickLaMuro changed the title [WIP] Rails 6.0 Rails 6.0 Dec 11, 2020
@miq-bot miq-bot removed the wip label Dec 11, 2020
@NickLaMuro
Copy link
Member Author

@miq-bot remove-label unmergeable

@Fryguy Fryguy merged commit f64a8b5 into ManageIQ:master Jan 11, 2021
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.

4 participants