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

Upgrade hashdiff #159

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 24, 2019
Merged

Upgrade hashdiff #159

merged 2 commits into from
Sep 24, 2019

Conversation

vivekbisen
Copy link
Contributor

@vivekbisen vivekbisen commented Aug 21, 2019

What

See title ☝️

Why

> opsicle --version
The HashDiff constant used by this gem conflicts with another gem of a similar name.  As of version 1.0 the HashDiff constant will be completely removed and replaced by Hashdiff.  For more information see https://github.com/liufengyun/hashdiff/issues/45.
opsicle version 2.13.1

Deploy Plan

Does Platform Operations need to know anything special about this deploy? Are migrations present?

Rollback Plan

  • To roll back this change, revert the merge with: git revert -m 1 MERGE_SHA and perform another deploy.

URLs

Links to bug tickets or user stories.

QA Plan

  • Checkout the branch.
  • Build the gem locally.
  • Run opsicle --version or any other opsicle command.
  • Verify that the deprecation warning is gone and command works as expected.

@mpillsbury mpillsbury self-requested a review September 23, 2019 14:30
Copy link

@mpillsbury mpillsbury left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Wait—I changed my mind. There are failing tests that still reference the old HashDiff constant.

@production-status-check
Copy link

:octocat: Has QA approval

@anfleene anfleene merged commit 4eb7d83 into master Sep 24, 2019
@emmahsax emmahsax deleted the upgrade_hashdiff branch July 14, 2020 11:20
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.

None yet

3 participants