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

Unlock the pg gem since 1.4.1 was released #21953

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 24, 2022

Conversation

jrafanie
Copy link
Member

1.4.0 led to ged/ruby-pg#466
and was fixed in ged/ruby-pg#467

Since 1.4.1 is now released and fixes the issue, we can safely unlock pg except
for version 1.4.0.

1.4.0 led to ged/ruby-pg#466
and was fixed in ged/ruby-pg#467

Since 1.4.1 is now released and fixes the issue, we can safely unlock pg except
for version 1.4.0.
Gemfile Outdated
# Lock down pg until 1.4.x is released with:
# https://github.com/ged/ruby-pg/pull/467 which fixes https://github.com/ged/ruby-pg/issues/466
gem "pg", "=1.3.5", :require => false
gem "pg", "!= 1.4.0", :require => false # 1.4.0 caused https://github.com/ged/ruby-pg/issues/466
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would prefer

Suggested change
gem "pg", "!= 1.4.0", :require => false # 1.4.0 caused https://github.com/ged/ruby-pg/issues/466
gem "pg", ">= 1.4.1", :require => false

otherwise the resolver could pick a lower version.

Copy link
Member

@Fryguy Fryguy Jun 24, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

and yes, I see that the original code before the lockdown had it unversioned, but that was wrong IMO...we don't want it to suddenly resolve to 1.3.4, for example, for whatever reason

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

haha, now you're making me look up the changelog.

Do we want to backport this so other branches never install 1.4.0? It shouldn't happen but they could pull 1.4.1 at any time.

If we want to backport, I would say ">= 1.3", "!= 1.4.0" is probably best as 1.3.0 drops ruby 2.4 and below. See: https://github.com/ged/ruby-pg/blob/252512608a814de16bbad55911f9bbcef0e73cb9/History.rdoc#v130-2022-01-20-michael-granger-gedfaeriemudorg-

For master, I'm fine with >= 1.4.1 going forward

Copy link
Member

@Fryguy Fryguy Jun 24, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we want to backport, I would say ">= 1.3", "!= 1.4.0" is probably best as 1.3.0 drops ruby 2.4 and below. See: https://github.com/ged/ruby-pg/blob/252512608a814de16bbad55911f9bbcef0e73cb9/History.rdoc#v130-2022-01-20-michael-granger-gedfaeriemudorg-

For master, I'm fine with >= 1.4.1 going forward

Yeah I'm good with that - we should definitely backport something so we don't accidentally unlock to a "bad" version.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cool, I'll update this PR to do ">= 1.3", "!= 1.4.0" first for backport. I'll then do ">= 1.4.1" on master as a followup.

jrafanie added a commit to jrafanie/manageiq that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2022
@jrafanie
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, added backport request for this PR for najdorf. I've opened #21956 to be reviewed merged after this one is done.

@miq-bot
Copy link
Member

miq-bot commented Jun 24, 2022

Checked commits jrafanie/manageiq@7682c35~...18fa876 with ruby 2.6.9, rubocop 1.19.1, haml-lint 0.35.0, and yamllint
1 file checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks fine. 👍

@Fryguy Fryguy merged commit f0fcf7e into ManageIQ:master Jun 24, 2022
jrafanie added a commit to jrafanie/manageiq that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2022
iv1111 pushed a commit to iv1111/manageiq that referenced this pull request Jun 28, 2022
@Fryguy
Copy link
Member

Fryguy commented Jun 30, 2022

@jrafanie A conflict occurred during the backport of this pull request to najdorf.

If this pull request is based on another pull request that has not been marked for backport, add the appropriate labels to the other pull request. Otherwise, please create a new pull request direct to the najdorf branch in order to resolve this.

Conflict details:

diff --cc Gemfile
index 6a59153ce3,1348027710..0000000000
--- a/Gemfile
+++ b/Gemfile
@@@ -60,7 -59,7 +60,11 @@@ gem "net-ldap"
  gem "net-ping",                         "~>1.7.4",           :require => false
  gem "openscap",                         "~>0.4.8",           :require => false
  gem "optimist",                         "~>3.0",             :require => false
++<<<<<<< HEAD
 +gem "pg",                                                    :require => false
++=======
+ gem "pg",                               ">=1.3", "!= 1.4.0", :require => false # 1.4.0 caused https://github.com/ged/ruby-pg/issues/466
++>>>>>>> f0fcf7e4da (Merge pull request #21953 from jrafanie/unlock_pg_gem_since_1_4_1_released)
  gem "pg-dsn_parser",                    "~>0.1.0",           :require => false
  gem "query_relation",                   "~>0.1.0",           :require => false
  gem "rack",                             ">=2.2.3.1",         :require => false

@Fryguy
Copy link
Member

Fryguy commented Jun 30, 2022

I'll take care of this one manually

Fryguy added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 30, 2022
…eased

Unlock the pg gem since 1.4.1 was released

(cherry picked from commit f0fcf7e)
@Fryguy
Copy link
Member

Fryguy commented Jun 30, 2022

najdorf backport details:

commit 122935f57ee67f9339a99d0706b76f0463eb7ef0 (HEAD -> najdorf, upstream/najdorf)
Author: Jason Frey <fryguy9@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu Jun 30 15:29:28 2022 -0400

    Update Gemfile.lock.release for pg gem restriction

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
modified: Gemfile.lock.release
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
@ Gemfile.lock.release:1227 @ DEPENDENCIES
   net-ping (~> 1.7.4)
   openscap (~> 0.4.8)
   optimist (~> 3.0)
-  pg
+  pg (>= 1.3, != 1.4.0)
   pg-dsn_parser (~> 0.1.0)
   pg-logical_replication (~> 1.2)
   puma (~> 4.2)

commit 893dfaf39034d6a9d03a4c086d62fec9a668ae05
Author: Jason Frey <fryguy9@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri Jun 24 17:19:51 2022 -0400

    Merge pull request #21953 from jrafanie/unlock_pg_gem_since_1_4_1_released

    Unlock the pg gem since 1.4.1 was released

    (cherry picked from commit f0fcf7e4da60c16615276cd19cf12e9ecadb94f1)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
modified: Gemfile
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
@ Gemfile:63 @ def manageiq_plugin(plugin_name)
 gem "net-ping",                         "~>1.7.4",           :require => false
 gem "openscap",                         "~>0.4.8",           :require => false
 gem "optimist",                         "~>3.0",             :require => false
-gem "pg",                                                    :require => false
+gem "pg",                               ">=1.3", "!= 1.4.0", :require => false # 1.4.0 caused https://github.com/ged/ruby-pg/issues/466
 gem "pg-dsn_parser",                    "~>0.1.0",           :require => false
 gem "query_relation",                   "~>0.1.0",           :require => false
 gem "rack",                             ">=2.2.3.1",         :require => false

@jrafanie jrafanie deleted the unlock_pg_gem_since_1_4_1_released branch July 15, 2022 20:17
GilbertCherrie pushed a commit to GilbertCherrie/manageiq that referenced this pull request Jul 7, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants