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

Update to ruby 3.4.1 #5382

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 11, 2025
Merged

Update to ruby 3.4.1 #5382

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 11, 2025

Conversation

segiddins
Copy link
Member

Signed-off-by: Samuel Giddins segiddins@segiddins.me

@segiddins segiddins force-pushed the segiddins/update-to-ruby-3.4.1 branch 3 times, most recently from 759d111 to ff2be24 Compare January 9, 2025 04:50
Signed-off-by: Samuel Giddins <segiddins@segiddins.me>
Signed-off-by: Samuel Giddins <segiddins@segiddins.me>
@segiddins segiddins force-pushed the segiddins/update-to-ruby-3.4.1 branch from 94d84d7 to 33ae713 Compare January 11, 2025 02:33
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 11, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.12%. Comparing base (fb8293a) to head (33ae713).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5382      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.14%   97.12%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         458      458              
  Lines        9584     9588       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         9310     9312       +2     
- Misses        274      276       +2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@segiddins segiddins merged commit a8172d8 into master Jan 11, 2025
20 of 21 checks passed
@segiddins segiddins deleted the segiddins/update-to-ruby-3.4.1 branch January 11, 2025 16:06
@simi
Copy link
Member

simi commented Jan 11, 2025

@segiddins I was looking into the codecov report, since it reported unused lines after the upgrade. Do you think that's ok/mistake of codecov?

@segiddins
Copy link
Member Author

The comment said everything was covered?

@simi
Copy link
Member

simi commented Jan 11, 2025

Yes, there are two checks. One passed, second complained about https://app.codecov.io/gh/rubygems/rubygems.org/pull/5382/indirect-changes drop in https://app.codecov.io/gh/rubygems/rubygems.org/pull/5382/indirect-changes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants