Require ruby 3.0+ #456
Require ruby 3.0+ #456
Conversation
adamruzicka
force-pushed
the
no-ruby27
branch
4 times, most recently
from
c7db2ec to
aab1a12
Compare
|
I enjoy "<3" in a PR title, but it could be a bit... misleading :D. At Vox Pupuli we would phrase it "Require Ruby 3.1+" (And 3.1 is already EoL. Should it be dropped as well?) |
Foreman, as the primary consumer, runs with 3.0 on EL9, so as much as I'd like to do that, no, not yet. |
adamruzicka
force-pushed
the
no-ruby27
branch
from
aab1a12 to
91bbeca
Compare
I guess, but I did enjoy typing that :) Reworded |
adamruzicka
force-pushed
the
no-ruby27
branch
from
91bbeca to
5ddad46
Compare
| Style/LambdaCall: | ||
| Enabled: false | ||
|
|
||
| Gemspec/RequiredRubyVersion: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doesn't it make more sense to update TargetRubyVersion: 2.7 to TargetRubyVersion: 3.0? Or do you have to keep linting for 2.7?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tried that at some point[1], but I was running into this:
> Run bundle exec rubocop
Error: RuboCop found unknown Ruby version 3.0 in `TargetRubyVersion` parameter (in .rubocop.yml).
Supported versions: 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8
Error: Process completed with exit code 2.
Guess that could be resolved by bumping rubocop (or theforeman-rubocop), but when I did that, the newer rubocop wanted to reformat every single file we have and I'd like to avoid that (or just adding all the new stuff to rubocop_todo)
[1] - https://github.com/Dynflow/dynflow/actions/runs/19291816955/job/55164106398
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah right, rubocop is also too ancient :( I guess the workaround is fine now now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For the record
$ bundle exec rubocop --regenerate-todo
-----B<-----SNIP----B<-----
237 files inspected, 1788 offenses detected, 1070 offenses auto-correctable
Created .rubocop_todo.yml.
So ideally, yes, but I don't want to do that here.
Edit: Tracked under #459
2 participants
No description provided.