Ruby 3.0 Support & CI Actions improvement

[jsantos]

• Relax Ruby version constraint with '>= 2.4', '< 4';
• CI now runs with multiple versions of Ruby, using a matrix strategy;
  • Currently runs on 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 3.0 (previously was only running on 2.6)
• Replaced the bundle install step with bundler-cache: true
  • As shown on https://github.com/ruby/setup-ruby#caching-bundle-install-automatically

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #124 (2013b36) into master (04bcb6f) will increase coverage by 1.42%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #124      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.52%   91.95%   +1.42%     
==========================================
  Files           1        1              
  Lines         359      348      -11     
==========================================
- Hits          325      320       -5     
+ Misses         34       28       -6     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lib/codecov.rb	91.95% <0.00%> (+1.42%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 04bcb6f...2013b36. Read the comment docs.

[AlexWayfer]

Thank you, especially for matrix in GitHub Actions (do we still need in Travis CI?), but I have a few questions and suggestions.

[jsantos]

Thank you, especially for matrix in GitHub Actions (do we still need in Travis CI?), but I have a few questions and suggestions.

I was initially editing the Travis CI file and got curious about which CI system was being used. Then I noticed GH Actions and started focusing on that. Guess if it's confirmed as not being used, travis.yml can be removed!

[AlexWayfer]

Guess if it's confirmed as not being used, travis.yml can be removed!

Even if so (we should wait for a response from maintainers), I think it should be made in a separate PR. I've just raised this question for discussion when noticed changes.

[n-rodriguez]

Good for you... still ruby is not a gem... -------- Message d'origine --------De : Jorge Oliveira Santos <[email protected]> Date : 30/12/2020 10:39 (GMT+01:00) À : codecov/codecov-ruby <[email protected]> Cc : Nicolas Rodriguez <[email protected]>, Comment <[email protected]> Objet : Re: [codecov/codecov-ruby] Ruby 3.0 Support & CI Actions improvement (#124) https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/12/21/ruby-version-policy-changes-with-2-1-0/

On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 at 17:16, Nicolas Rodriguez ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In codecov.gemspec <#124 (comment)>: > @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Gem::Specification.new do |s| s.homepage = 'https://github.com/codecov/codecov-ruby' s.license = 'MIT' s.platform = Gem::Platform::RUBY - s.required_ruby_version = '~> 2.4' + s.required_ruby_version = '>= 2.4', '< 3.1' Ruby doesn't follow semantic versioning — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#124 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAH3R3GGKB2HZYJH6JS3ALSXLVXZANCNFSM4VLOKZEA> .

—You are receiving this because you commented.Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[ShockwaveNN]

Sooo, any news on merging it?

Also, as a side note that this github actions can be improved via testing head version of ruby, but allowing this to fail

something like this:

    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    continue-on-error: ${{ matrix.allow-failures }}
    strategy:
      matrix:
        ruby: [2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 3.0]
        allow-failures: [false]
        include:
          - ruby: head
            allow-failures: true

So next time in December ruby 3.1 will be ready to release - CI can be sure that new version is working fine

[AlexWayfer]

Also, as a side note that this github actions can be improved via testing head version of ruby, but allowing this to fail

Honestly, I often see such practice, but don't think that it's really helpful and matter. CI bloating (imagine an impact on all PRs during this year), but new versions has incompatible very rarely. Maintainers or contributors can manually test gems with RC versions if they want to ensure that everything is OK, or they know about related changes.

[ShockwaveNN]

@thomasrockhu any news on merging it or adding support of ruby 3.0 in other way?
Or is there some particular problem with this PR and something holding it back?

[thomasrockhu]

Thanks for the contribution! I'll look into releasing tomorrow or early next week.

[ahmetabdi]

Thanks @thomasrockhu