Skip to content

Conversation

@msxavi
Copy link
Member

@msxavi msxavi commented Jan 9, 2026

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

@SyntheticDave SyntheticDave left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looking good! A few notes

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
// For format details, see https://aka.ms/devcontainer.json. For config options, see the
// README at: https://github.com/devcontainers/templates/tree/main/src/ruby
{
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🔥 Thanks for adding this

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
# Happi - AI Coding Instructions
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🙌 We might want to get these instructions in our codebases that use Happi, unless there's a way to include these in the copilot instructions of dependent codebases.

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
name: Ruby
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

❗ Are we intending to replace the buildkite build with this action?

Looks like buildkite is still testing ruby 2.1.5

rbenv install -s 2.1.5
rbenv local 2.1.5

Do we need to update or remove that?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh, I don't see buildkite configured. Happy to remove and stick with this action. We can switch to GH actions on small test suites (<3 minutes).

strategy:
fail-fast: false
matrix:
ruby-version: ["3.2", "3.3", "3.4", "4.0"]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🌱 We could probably exclude 3.3 from testing as we're going from 3.2 to 3.4, and can likely assume if both of those build than so does 3.3.
Spec suite is small tho, so shouldn't be a problem to include.


# You MUST use `adapter` method
conn = Faraday.new(...) do |f|
f.adapter AnyAdapter
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

📝 Looks like we're already using this pattern in JR

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, I ain't reading all that 😆


### ✅ IMPLEMENTED: Removed Custom JSON Middleware

Removed the undefined `JSON` constant middleware - Faraday's native JSON handling provides the same functionality.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

📝 We're using similar middleware in JR. E.g. FaradayMiddleware::ParseJson.
Looks like we'll need to do the same there.

@@ -1 +1 @@
3.2.0
3.4.8
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

❗ This Happi version is being referenced in https://github.com/rdytech/bdf-service/pull/857, which is bumping the BDF Service to ruby 4.0. Will this cause issues?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since happi is already passing on ruby 4 via actions and passing on BDF, no issues I can see. This version is just the default for who wants to work with happi locally. I didn't move to 4 because the devcontainer is still a little unstable.

end
end

describe '#connection' do
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🔥 Great to add so much additional coverage!

Comment on lines +252 to +255
it 'returns a Logger writing to STDOUT' do
logger = client.default_logger
expect(logger).to be_a(Logger)
end
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

❓ Not sure this is testing exactly what the block claims?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants