Missing minimal Ruby version

[marcandre]

Please use required_ruby_version...

It's too bad that 4.0 is out without this, as anyone using/testing older Rubies will have to specify manually a "<4" version in their Gemfile.

I wish Rubygems made that mandatory

[pirj]

Good catch.

Rails, which we depend on, has required_ruby_version, specifically rails 4.2 says it supports Ruby 1.9.3+, but we don't. As to my memory, we support Ruby 2.2+.

I feel your pain here if a tool is testing Rails 4.2 on Ruby 1.9.3, and Bundler installs rspec-rails version 4, manual configuration would be required.

Not sure, however, if adding required_ruby_version in rspec-rails 4.0.1 would solve the situation - instead of the latest 4.0.1 Bundler will fall back to 4.0.0, and I have no good idea how to fix this situation. Making required_ruby_version mandatory sounds like a really good idea.

[marcandre]

You don't support Ruby 2.2.

Your .travis is 2.3+ and you use (at least one) &.

[marcandre]

Making required_ruby_version mandatory sounds like a really good idea.

Make sure to add your thumbs up on rubygems/rubygems#3515 then :-)

Indeed, as I point out in the issue I opened, there is no actual fix for this (all too common) situation 🤷‍♂️.

I should also create a rubocop for this

[pirj]

I hope they'll support the idea. At the same time, I can't install rubygems 3.0.8 while installing Ruby 2.2 from RVM to test where we've opted for 2.3+.

[JonRowe]

We support Rails 5 and Rails 6 in this version (4.0.0) but we for transitionary purposes left the version of Rails at >= 4.2 for soft support. The idea being that major versions of rspec-rails will support the current major supported versions of Rails. E.g when Rails 7 is released we aim to release rspec-rails 5.0.0, that will support Rails 6 and 7.

It seems this is a casualty of that, I'd almost rather issue a warning about this with instructions on how to fix than apply this restriction given that it won't "fix" 4.0.0 (which probably should have had this).

[JonRowe]

Coming back to this, the reason why I haven't just merged it, is because it doesn't fix 4.0.0 which we can't yank (I believe) as that would break peoples builds. We almost need an interim step that fixes rspec-rails on Ruby 2.2 (its probably just those funky operators), warns about the change in minimum ruby version, then add it later?

[betesh]

I'm not following the reasoning about not being able to yank it. Isn't there a risk of breaking builds every time you yank a gem? Isn't that inconvenience outweighed by the need to yank the gem to avoid disrupting developers in some other way?

[JonRowe]

I'm not following the reasoning about not being able to yank it. Isn't there a risk of breaking builds every time you yank a gem?

Yes thats the reasoning.

Isn't that inconvenience outweighed by the need to yank the gem to avoid disrupting developers in some other way?

No, yanking affects everyone and the version of the gem isn't broken, its just a case case that is technically unsupported gets asub optimal situation where they are accidentally upgraded.

Ruby 2.2 is EOL'd and quite out of date being what, 5 years old? The majority of rspec-rails 4 users are going to be on more modern rubies and completely unaffected. So in this case the benefit of the majority outweighs the inconvenience to the minority.

[marcandre]

Right, yanking is not the way.

I can check out how difficult it would be to make 4.0.1 that would be Ruby 2.2 compatible...

[JonRowe]

I can check out how difficult it would be to make 4.0.1 that would be Ruby 2.2 compatible...

I've been trying to take a look at this today, the first hurdle... is actually installing Ruby 2.2... 😂

[marcandre]

Ok, I'll let you handle it, just let me know if you'd like me to have a look at it.

[JonRowe]

Fun fact, Rails 5.2.4.2 is not entirely Ruby 2.2 compatible, they patched it in December but haven't released that patch, assumedly they are waiting until 5.2.5?

[JonRowe]

This is merged into master and 4-0-maintenance, I will release 4.0.1 shortly which sets the minimum ruby version to 2.2 and contains the fix so that rspec-rails at least, will not error on Ruby 2.2.

Thanks for the prompt on this @marcandre 💜 🧡 💚 💛 ❤️

[marcandre]

Awesome! I'm glad that the &. I had noticed turned out to be the only actual incompatibility! <3

[JonRowe]

I'm amused by how much time it took to track down that Rails itself had one too 😂
That and playing whack a mole with our travis setup

[marcandre]

Yeah, I saw you had to fiddle with a lot of dependency loading. I'm very glad you looked into it (instead of me), thanks again.