Remove sprockets dependency #358
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
cjcolvar
force-pushed
the
sprockets4-support
branch
from
46b14b2 to
d8edae7
Compare
cjcolvar
force-pushed
the
sprockets4-support
branch
from
d8edae7 to
5ecb733
Compare
jrgriffiniii
approved these changes
Nov 17, 2020
This was referenced Nov 18, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Testing removing the sprockets dependency as a first step to understanding and resolving #310 and the PRs: #311 and #345.
In the circleci config it runs bundle install when it has just checked out the code so it pulls in sprockets 4 (or gets it from cache). Then it does engine cart and the rails version might pin it to an earlier version of sprockets there. But after the engine cart generation there's another bundle install which is where the error was happening. So if we precede that with a sprockets upgrade everything seems to work fine. This should now be caching so it shouldn't slow things down, but maybe we want to look at caching more down the line.
closes #310