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

Not for merge: 9.2 backports #1775

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Not for merge: 9.2 backports #1775

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

luke-hill
Copy link
Contributor

TBC:

  • Which fixes?
    • Nothing that would be considered a 9.3
    • Any other bug fixes with large demand that are easy to CP in.
    • Stuff which won't conflict with ongoing work in main

Description

  • Cherry-picked fix for Ruby 3.4 (Hash instantation)

Type of change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Please add an entry to the relevant section of CHANGELOG.md as part of this pull request.

Checklist:

Your PR is ready for review once the following checklist is
complete. You can also add some checks if you want to.

  • Tests have been added for any changes to behaviour of the code
  • New and existing tests are passing locally and on CI
  • bundle exec rubocop reports no offenses
  • RDoc comments have been updated
  • CHANGELOG.md has been updated

* Pass hash through as explicit hash to avoid unknown keyword argument error.

* Changelog entry for #1757
Created-by: polyglot-release v1.6.0
@@ -75,7 +75,9 @@ def row(row)
def eof; end
end

NULL_CONVERSIONS = Hash.new(strict: false, proc: ->(cell_value) { cell_value }).freeze
# This is a Hash being initialized with a default value of a Hash, DO NOT REFORMAT TO REMOVE {}
# Future versions [3.4.0+] of ruby will interpret these as keywords and break.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

is it possible to change from "future" to just "3.4"? Future is not accurate anymore

Suggested change
# Future versions [3.4.0+] of ruby will interpret these as keywords and break.
# Ruby versions from 3.4.0 onwards interpret these as keywords and break.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll fix this up in main when we cut a v10. For now I'm focussing on getting the stuff out which is causing some issues.

@jagthedrummer
Copy link

@luke-hill is there anything I (or anybody) can do to help you get this landed?

@luke-hill
Copy link
Contributor Author

There's an issue currently with the api token. I'm not quite sure what though. I've spoken to the team internally and we need to investigate why this happened.

If it will take a while I'm tempted to just regenerate the overall key and re-add it to each repo. But I don't actually know why it stopped working.

See here

@jagthedrummer
Copy link

Mmmm, yeah probably not something that anybody else can help with directly. Maybe the token expired?

@tagliala
Copy link

if a new API key is needed, is it possible to reconsider this?

#1758

RubyGems should support skipping MFA for API keys, so it should be possible to opt-in for MFA

@luke-hill
Copy link
Contributor Author

I just went nuclear and purged everything and re-generated everything. Then pushing to 9.2.1 worked. In doing so I realised the way we were doing our API keys was a bit clunky, so I tidied it up for everything else.

Will close this ticket off as completed. The next release will be a v10 one as I don't want to faff around with any more backports. If I can carry on with the v10 stuff it should be done soon

@luke-hill luke-hill closed this Jan 12, 2025
@luke-hill luke-hill deleted the 9_2/main branch January 12, 2025 11:55
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