-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 553
Fix CI to be green #780
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
Merged
Merged
Fix CI to be green #780
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@voxik pointed out elsewhere:
I can validate that removing that line instead does fix it for ruby 3.0.
But I don't think this is the same issue addressed by that PR, because rspec/rspec-expectations#1339 was included in rspec-expectations v3.11.0, and using that version, you still get an error in main.
I'm neutral on which way to fix it (just want the CI to be green 😀 )
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that the rspec-expectations PR now tries to preserve the original exception message, which is not modified by error_higlight or did you mean. And that is the reason why the test case fails.
Actually, thinking about it once again, the error failure reported by RSpec might be still misleading, because it says something different then it does. This is the message:
But because it internally compares the expected message with the original message, is should actually report:
Because that is what is actually happening on background.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reported as https://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/issues/1362
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@voxik can you clarify for me - is there any action needed on this PR or is it good to go in your opinion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That is really not up to me. I just randomly hit the similar issue and tried to understand the code and provide some feedback. It is ultimately up to Thor folks to decide what this test should actually test. If the
DidYouMean
/Thor::Correctable
should be covered by this test case or not. I think that it should be extracted into independent test case, but I'll be also fine if the test suite is green 🟢