ci: install libvips42
#681
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
ugh ok so apparently the fact that #680 started passing after this change was just a fluke - still, this does address the spammy warnings... |
G-Rath
force-pushed
the
ci/install-vips
branch
from
b67eaa2
to
1787c6a
Compare
nzlaura
approved these changes
Sep 23, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Not having this installed seems to be the cause of the recent consistent CI failing on the drag-and-drop tests about the sign not being found, and also addresses a bunch of constant redefinition warnings.
While the test suite does pass with this, I would like confirmation from someone that knows the application better that we do expect to be using vips rather than mini_magick, as I can't find any reference to a preference or expectation in the codebase and I have found some GitHub issues suggesting there was a bug or two related to- I discussed with @joshmcarthur and he thinks this is fineimage_processingand Rails 7.0 having "default confusion".