| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
| |
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
7073: Unskip passing spec r=colby-swandale a=deivid-rodriguez
### What was the end-user problem that led to this PR?
The problem was that I discovered by chance that one of the skipped specs seems to be passing.
### What was your diagnosis of the problem?
My diagnosis was that something has changed for the better that made this spec green.
### What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR?
My fix is to remove the skip.
### Why did you choose this fix out of the possible options?
I chose this fix because it's good :)
Co-authored-by: David Rodríguez <deivid.rodriguez@riseup.net>
|
| | |
|
|/
|
|
| |
The `--no-install` flag flag is only meant for `bundle package`.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
7037: Test `bundle viz` command deprecation r=colby-swandale a=deivid-rodriguez
### What was the end-user problem that led to this PR?
The problem was that we were not printing any deprecation messages for `bundle viz`.
### What was your diagnosis of the problem?
My diagnosis was that we are removing `bundle viz` at the same time as deprecating it. Thus, the deprecations never actually show up.
### What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR?
My fix is to first deprecate the command on bundler 2, then remove it in bundler 3.
### Why did you choose this fix out of the possible options?
I chose this fix because it's the most sensible approach to this removal.
Co-authored-by: David Rodríguez <deivid.rodriguez@riseup.net>
|
| | |
|
|\ \
| |/
|/|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
7030: Remove `LessThanProc` r=colby-swandale a=deivid-rodriguez
### What was the end-user problem that led to this PR?
The problem was that the `LessThanProc` class we use for filtering specs is confusing, in my opinion. For example, if I tag a spec with `:bundler => "2"`, I would expect it to run only against bundler 2. However, that's not how it works, it instead runs against any bundler higher than or equal to 2.
### What was your diagnosis of the problem?
My diagnosis was that the `LessThanProc` class could be much simpler, and just check that the passed requirement matches the version the class was created with.
### What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR?
My fix is to simplify the `LessThanProc` class to only do requirement matching, and remove the "less than" functionality.
### Why did you choose this fix out of the possible options?
I chose this fix because in my opinion it's simpler to understand and less surprising.
Co-authored-by: David Rodríguez <deivid.rodriguez@riseup.net>
|
| | |
|
|/
|
|
| |
In favor of a simpler helper.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Including the version is confusing, in my opinion, because it's unclear
whether it refers to the future version of removal, or to the current
running version.
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
6974: Use newer list interface r=indirect a=deivid-rodriguez
### What was the end-user problem that led to this PR?
The problem was that our specs emit a lot of deprecations about the list command.
### What was your diagnosis of the problem?
My diagnosis was that we are using the deprecated interface to the list command everywhere.
### What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR?
My fix is to start using the new interface. If we don't use it ourselves, how could we be in a position to tell our users to start using it?
### Why did you choose this fix out of the possible options?
I chose this fix because we should do this, at same point, and doing it now simplifies enabling deprecations.
Co-authored-by: David Rodríguez <deivid.rodriguez@riseup.net>
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|/
|
|
|
| |
It break the examples of bundler. Because some examples detect the
different version of system ruby than test target version like trunk.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Since the errors are checked on their own stream, no filtering is
needed.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In order to be able to test against different versions of rubygems, we
prepend our local copy of rubygems to the $LOAD_PATH. This is done as
early as possible, inside each binstubs through [this helper file].
However, some subprocesses overwrite the `RUBYOPT` env variable, thus
leaking to the system copy of rubygems again. Since we already [prepend
the hacks file] to `RUBYOPT` in the main helper, while also preserving
the previous value, this "customized environments" are not needed.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These specs need https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/pull/1527 to pass,
so restrict them to rubygems version containing that.
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
6931: Add patch option in bundle config r=greysteil a=ankitkataria
### What was the end-user problem that led to this PR?
Issue #5994
### What was your diagnosis of the problem?
As mentioned by @indirect I added a `patch` option in the bundler config, which by default is false. If set to true, patch level update are preferred if no update levels are specified.
### What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR?
A patch level config option which can be opted into.
Co-authored-by: Ankit Kataria <ankitkataria28@gmail.com>
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|/ |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
#6743 was failed with ruby core repository and ignored working example.
Fixed them.
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
6743: Support file structure of ruby core repository. r=hsbt a=hsbt
### What was the end-user problem that led to this PR?
In the ruby core repository, I put bundler executable and bundler libraries under the `bin` and `lib` directories. It breaks the current behavior.
### What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR?
Support the structure of ruby core repository.
Co-authored-by: SHIBATA Hiroshi <hsbt@ruby-lang.org>
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| | |
The ruby core repository couldn't invoke its examples.
|
| |
| |
| |
| | |
They are replaced build binary on ruby core repository.
|
|\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
6714: Spec reset state and refactorings r=deivid-rodriguez a=deivid-rodriguez
### What was the end-user problem that led to this PR?
The problem was that while working on #6713, I noticed several issues like order dependent failures, situations hard to debug, or specs doing too much and taking longer than they should.
### What was your diagnosis of the problem?
My diagnosis was that:
* Sometimes specs leak settings and env variable modifications.
* When a hang happens inside a subprocess, it's hard to debug because logging is not printed out anywhere.
* Some specs create unnecessary gemfiles and run `bundle install` multiple times unnecessarily.
### What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR?
My fix for state leaks is to reset state after each spec, for the hangs is to reorder some lines in the `sys_exec` helper (https://github.com/bundler/bundler/commit/b305a5b2524a6457b05a9d39e9526f75c98a0752), and for the unnecessary operations, to refactor the specs to avoid them.
### Why did you choose this fix out of the possible options?
I chose this fix because it seems like the best way to alleviate the issues found.
Co-authored-by: David Rodríguez <deivid.rodriguez@riseup.net>
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
If a set of specs need the Gemfile, they also need to `bundle install`
it, so it's more readable to move those together, and also more
efficient since we don't create Gemfiles that are not necessary.
|
| | | |
|
|\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
6769: Fix `remove` when block method appears in gem name r=segiddins a=dduugg
Thanks so much for the contribution!
To make reviewing this PR a bit easier, please fill out answers to the following questions.
### What was the end-user problem that led to this PR?
https://github.com/bundler/bundler/issues/6768
### What was your diagnosis of the problem?
`remove_nested_blocks` considers any appearance of text matching a block method (`group source env install_if`) to be an occurrence of a nested block.
### What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR?
`remove_nested_blocks` should only reduce the scope of where a nested block method can occur.
### Why did you choose this fix out of the possible options?
Another approach would use word delimiters rather than `starts_with?` to find nested block methods, but this is probably fine.
Co-authored-by: Douglas Eichelberger <dduugg@gmail.com>
|
| | |/
| |/| |
|
| | | |
|