Until now, Rails only droped compatibility with older
rubies on new majors, but I propose to change this policy
because it causes us to either keep compatibility with long
EOLed rubies or to bump the Rails major more often, and to
drop multiple Ruby versions at once when we bump the major.
In my opinion it's a bad alignments of incentives. And we'd
be much better to just drop support in new minors whenever they
go EOL (so 3 years).
Also Ruby being an upstream dependency, it's not even
a semver violation AFAICT.
Since Rails 7.2 isn't planned before a few months, we
can already drop Ruby 3.0 as it will be EOL in March.
Ruby 3.3.0 is going to start warning for racc not being specififed as a
dependency, and Ruby 3.4.0 will raise if it is not specified.
This commit prevents those issues by adding racc to the Action Pack
gemspec, since `racc/parser` is a runtime dependency of the Journey
parser.
Prior to this commit, the only out-of-the-box parsing that
`ActionDispatch::Testing::TestResponse#parsed_body` supported was for
`application/json` requests. This meant that `response.body ==
response.parsed_body` for HTML requests.
```ruby
get "/posts"
response.content_type # => "text/html; charset=utf-8"
response.parsed_body.class # => Nokogiri::HTML5::Document
response.parsed_body.to_html # => "<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n..."
```
Using `parsed_body` for JSON requests supports `Hash#fetch`, `Hash#dig`,
and Ruby 3.2 destructuring assignment and pattern matching.
The introduction of [Nokogiri support for pattern
matching][nokogiri-pattern-matching] poses an opportunity to make assertions
about the structure of the HTML response.
On top of that, there is ongoing work to [introduce pattern matching
support in MiniTest][minitest-pattern-matching].
[nokogiri-pattern-matching]: https://github.com/sparklemotion/nokogiri/pull/2523
[minitest-pattern-matching]: https://github.com/minitest/minitest/pull/936
Rack 2 includes this code, but in Rack 3 it was extracted into gems. These
gems include a v1 release compatible with Rack 2, and a v2 release
compatible with Rack v3+.
Since 28f81c05589e4be98b6500b2b915842c68846c41, if the `same_site:`
option is set to `:none` when creating a cookie, it will be passed
through to Rack. Support for `:none` was added in Rack 2.0.9, so we
should bump the minimum required version to ensure it's available.
We had a discussion on the Core team and we don't want to expose this information
as a JSON endpoint and not by default.
It doesn't make sense to expose this JSON locally and this controller is only
accessible in dev, so the proposed access from a production app seems off.
This reverts commit 8eaffe7e89719ac62ff29c2e4208cfbeb1cd1c38, reversing
changes made to b6e4305c3bca4c673996d0af9db0f4cfbf50215e.
Generally followed the pattern for https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/32034
* Removes needless CI configs for 2.4
* Targets 2.5 in rubocop
* Updates existing CHANGELOG entries for fewer merge conflicts
* Removes Hash#slice extension as that's inlined on Ruby 2.5.
* Removes the need for send on define_method in MethodCallAssertions.
The concurrent-ruby gem is a toolset containing many concurrency
utilities. Many of these utilities include runtime-specific
optimizations when possible. Rather than clutter the Rails codebase with
concurrency utilities separate from the core task, such tools can be
superseded by similar tools in the more specialized gem. This commit
replaces `ActiveSupport::Concurrency::Latch` with
`Concurrent::CountDownLatch`, which is functionally equivalent.
I found that nil values were being incorrectly sent to
`parse_nested_query` in Rack. Originally it was thought that Rails was
doing something incorrect but it was actually rack-test. This was fixed
in brynary/rack-test@4a4b2c1 and is no longer an issue. This commit
bumps rack-test in Rails so changes to Rack don't cause failures.
See rack/rack#813 for more information.
Rack is very carefully released, we should be able to upgrade minor
versions without much effort. We are a bunch of Rails core who are also
Rack core members so there won't be any issue with that. And in case
there's something wrong, we should fix on both sides.
Even though, doesn't seem like we will have a 1.7 version, this will be
useful as an example for when we go with Rack 2.0. We should ~> 2.0.
