Add back activesupport #259
Conversation
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #259 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.47% 99.47%
=======================================
Files 29 29
Lines 766 767 +1
=======================================
+ Hits 762 763 +1
Misses 4 4
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
adomokos
force-pushed
the
ad/add-back-active-support
branch
from
5263863 to
5994bb4
Compare
We are not ready to remove it. There are instances of `blank?` and `singularize` that are used in the code. Removing `activesupport` still not fails any of the tests, as we have `generator_spec` that uses and installs `activesupport`.
adomokos
force-pushed
the
ad/add-back-active-support
branch
from
5994bb4 to
5047cfe
Compare
|
Addresses #260 |
|
@adomokos also code is using |
| @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ def stop_processing? | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| def define_accessor_methods_for_keys(keys) | |||
| return if keys.blank? | |||
| return if keys.empty? | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@adomokos since we are adding back activesupport, do we really need to make this change? Instead, we could simply include active_support/core_ext/object/blank and use the same method without introducing additional changes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The goal is to yank Active Support dependency, entirely, for pure Ruby projects. Not sure how easily feasible (or how much needed) that is, though.
We are not ready to remove it. There are instances of
blank?andsingularizethat are used in the code.Removing
activesupportstill not fails any of the tests, as we havegenerator_specthat uses and installsactivesupport.Fixes #257 and #258.