Update dependency versions inside gemspec #413

apuntamb · 2019-02-26T07:17:34Z

This PR updates the versions of following dependencies which are needed by foreman_azure_rm has started to point to the latest fog-azure-rm (0.4.9).
Foreman compute resources are in process to be bumped to refer to fog-2.x and fog-core 2.x and the versions currently being used for the selected dependencies in this PR, show certain conflicts with other gems in terms of version requirements. Preferred fog-core version for fog-azure-rm in this case is >=2.x. For the other three dependencies fog-json, azure-storage, mime-types, newer versions satisfy the version specifications too.

ares · 2019-02-26T11:06:19Z

LGTM

apuntamb · 2019-02-26T12:39:59Z

@maham-nazir-confiz Could you please review this change?

apuntamb · 2019-03-01T09:23:34Z

Any updates on this? @maham-nazir-confiz

ShimShtein · 2019-03-12T11:52:45Z

ACK from me.
@plribeiro3000, if we can get this in, we could move foreman-azure-rm to use the latest core (2.1.0).

plribeiro3000 · 2019-03-20T20:22:29Z

@ShimShtein I'm on it. Sorry for the delay.

plribeiro3000 · 2019-03-20T20:23:29Z

LGTM.

ShimShtein · 2019-04-03T06:45:10Z

@maham-nazir-confiz can you please update about the status of this PR? It's critical for https://github.com/theforeman/foreman_azure_rm, since Foreman project moves to fog-core 2.1 and the plugin will not be able to function with current version of fog-azure-rm.
This change was already tested in Foreman and it looks good, the system functions as expected. If you require more testing, or any other requirement, please tell us, so we will be able to comply for those requirements.

maham-nazir-confiz · 2019-04-03T12:12:55Z

@ShimShtein

Hi,
I'm sorry but we cannot merge this PR. This PR is not be backward compatible and will cause breakage for any other system that uses this gem.

Regards

ShimShtein · 2019-04-03T14:00:25Z

@maham-nazir-confiz, first thanks for responding to this. The response is much appreciated.
From what I can see, latest fog 1.x core is from August 2017 (More than a year old).
How long do you wish to support fog 1.x core, especially when other fog plugins already moved to core 2.1. Right now I already know about GCE, AWS, vSphere and OpenStack with more to join soon.

ShimShtein

From looking at other dependencies, fog-core was the only one that is not backwards compatible.

@maham-nazir-confiz, what do you say about this?

ShimShtein · 2019-04-04T07:00:55Z

fog-azure-rm.gemspec

@@ -22,8 +22,8 @@ Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
  spec.add_development_dependency 'minitest', '~> 5.8.4'
  spec.add_development_dependency 'simplecov'
  spec.add_development_dependency 'codeclimate-test-reporter' , '~> 1.0.0'
-  spec.add_dependency 'fog-core', '~> 1.43'
-  spec.add_dependency 'fog-json', '~> 1.0.2'
+  spec.add_dependency 'fog-core', '~> 2.1.0'


Let's try and make it backwards compatible - I suggest removing version restriction.

Suggested change

spec.add_dependency 'fog-core', '~> 2.1.0'

spec.add_dependency 'fog-core'

apuntamb · 2019-04-15T12:08:43Z

@maham-nazir-confiz As suggested by @ShimShtein , I have tested the above changes. In addition to those, I assume we can also remove version restriction on fog-json so that there will not be any hard dependency on fog-core being migrated to 2.0. Please let us now your thoughts on this.
It would be great if you can review it with these changes. I guess that might solve our problem of backward compatibility.

bguban · 2019-04-16T10:18:29Z

fog-azure-rm.gemspec

@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
  spec.add_dependency 'azure_mgmt_traffic_manager', '~> 0.9.0'
  spec.add_dependency 'azure_mgmt_sql', '~> 0.9.0'
  spec.add_dependency 'azure_mgmt_key_vault', '~> 0.9.0'
-  spec.add_dependency 'azure-storage', '= 0.11.5.preview'
+  spec.add_dependency 'azure-storage', '~> 0.11.preview'


Can we use the latest version 0.15.0.preview here?

@bguban, ~> 0.11.preview will take 0.15.0.preview too.

~> 0.11.preview means >= 0.11 including preview and < 1.0

Can you explain how it will take 0.15.0.preview as well? When I install the gem with these dependencies, it just shows as 0.11.preivew

According to thoughtbot (specifically the second part - ~> 1.1 example) this will result with >= 0.11 and < 1.0 as I have mentioned before. According to rubygems pattern guide

Using ~> with prerelease versions will restrict you to prerelease versions only.

Which should be good, since Azure only releases .preview versions to rubygems

We already tested it, and 0.15.preview was pulled.

@maham-nazir-confiz, @ShimShtein maybe as possible solution is just to increment the major version of the fog-azure-rm and use the latest versions of dependent gems in it. If somebody needs backward compatibility they would use the current version, who don't need it could use the newer version of the gem.

I agree, upgrading to later gem versions would resolve much of these issues.

@bguban This can be a possible solution.
@maham-nazir-confiz your thoughts on @bguban 's comment?

@maham-nazir-confiz, Actually it depends on the user to limit nokogiri version. I mean the user can limit nokogiri version in his own Gemspec file like this:

gem 'fog-azure-rm' # require our library gem 'nokogiri', '<=1.9.1' # if the user wants ruby 2.0 compatibility

azure-storage does not require newer 'nokogiri', it sets only lower limit requirement. It's up to user to set up higher limit, if the user needs it.

Other option would be adding an if condition into fog-azure-rm.gemspec, but I am not sure it will be parsed well by rubygems.

@ShimShtein That's right, users can set the upper limit of nokogiri, if required, in their own gemspec.
@maham-nazir-confiz What do you think?

@maham-nazir-confiz Could you please let us know if the approach suggested against nokogiri failure works for you?

ShimShtein · 2019-04-16T10:24:49Z

ACK from me, it's also backwards compatible.

apuntamb · 2019-04-16T10:43:17Z

fog-azure-rm.gemspec

-  spec.add_dependency 'fog-core', '~> 1.43'
-  spec.add_dependency 'fog-json', '~> 1.0.2'
+  spec.add_dependency 'fog-core'
+  spec.add_dependency 'fog-json'


@maham-nazir-confiz I have removed the version dependency here. Could you please take a look?

I'll get back to you after reviewing the changes.

Regards

@maham-nazir-confiz Any updates on this?

maham-nazir-confiz · 2019-04-22T12:49:31Z

@apuntamb
I'll have a definitive answer for you in a couple of days. Running my tests right now.

Regards

apuntamb · 2019-04-22T12:52:42Z

@maham-nazir-confiz
OK sure, thanks for the update.

bguban · 2019-10-02T17:42:45Z

@maham-nazir-confiz, any news about this PR?
I started updating my app to Rails 6 and found that rails uses actiontext gem which uses nokogiri. And it's required version is >= 1.8.5.
So now I'm blocked by fog-azure-rm and its dependency on the old nokogiri version.

maham-nazir-confiz · 2019-10-03T10:25:26Z

@bguban
Hi. We are actually in the phase of upgrading the fog-azure-rm gem to the latest SDK versions. We're doing the POC on it right now. Once it's green, we'll go ahead with the changes.

Regards

stanhu · 2020-07-09T07:53:36Z

@maham-nazir-confiz Are you still working on this? I'd love to get fog-azure-rm working with fog-core v2.x. Do you want others to take over maintenance of this project?

frantisekrokusekpa · 2021-04-26T12:32:15Z

Any updates on this?

stanhu · 2021-04-27T05:06:12Z

For those of you interested, I forked this gem and made numerous fixes: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-fog-azure-rm

ghost · 2021-10-07T12:42:34Z

@stanhu Hi Stan, thank you for taking initiative in this topic and maintaining this fork. As you may have noticed the azure Ruby SDK is in the process of being retired (except for the storage gems): https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-ruby#important-announcement

This includes the ms_rest_azure gem which still seems to be a dependency of your fork and would need replacement (see migration guide: https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-ruby/blob/master/docs/README.md). Are there any plans on GitLab's side to keep supporting the gitlab-fog-azure-rm fork or do you want to move to a different solution? We're asking because we're currently evaluating hosting files on Azure using Carrierwave and are wondering if we can still count on this being supported via the fog adapter/API. It is not looking too promising so far as even the 'supported' gems seem to be in a somewhat difficult spot right now (Azure/azure-storage-ruby#194 (comment) and Azure/azure-storage-ruby#196)

Cheers!

stanhu · 2021-10-07T23:21:47Z

@sebnjk I can't promise anything, but I'd imagine we'll have to support the gem for a while since GitLab has customers that rely on that gem.

I personally would like to migrate away from CarrierWave and Fog in favor of a solution that focuses on object storage and uses the SDKs directly as much as possible, which fog-aws does not. https://github.com/google/go-cloud is a good model in Go; I'd like to see something like that in Ruby.

Note that the fork only supports file transfers; I stripped all the other cloud-related functionality.

ShimShtein suggested changes Apr 4, 2019

View reviewed changes

Update dependency versions inside gemspec

5f49643

apuntamb force-pushed the update_versions_gemspec branch from b88ca9a to 5f49643 Compare April 16, 2019 09:37

bguban reviewed Apr 16, 2019

View reviewed changes

apuntamb commented Apr 16, 2019

View reviewed changes

apuntamb mentioned this pull request Apr 23, 2019

overwrite FogExtensions::AzureRM::Server::persisted? theforeman/foreman_azure_rm#19

Closed

	spec.add_dependency 'fog-core', '~> 2.1.0'
	spec.add_dependency 'fog-core'

Update dependency versions inside gemspec #413

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Update dependency versions inside gemspec #413

Conversation

apuntamb commented Feb 26, 2019 • edited Loading

ares commented Feb 26, 2019

apuntamb commented Feb 26, 2019

apuntamb commented Mar 1, 2019

ShimShtein commented Mar 12, 2019

plribeiro3000 commented Mar 20, 2019

plribeiro3000 commented Mar 20, 2019

ShimShtein commented Apr 3, 2019

maham-nazir-confiz commented Apr 3, 2019

ShimShtein commented Apr 3, 2019

ShimShtein left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

apuntamb commented Apr 15, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ShimShtein commented Apr 16, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maham-nazir-confiz commented Apr 22, 2019

apuntamb commented Apr 22, 2019

bguban commented Oct 2, 2019

maham-nazir-confiz commented Oct 3, 2019

stanhu commented Jul 9, 2020

frantisekrokusekpa commented Apr 26, 2021

stanhu commented Apr 27, 2021

ghost commented Oct 7, 2021

stanhu commented Oct 7, 2021

apuntamb commented Feb 26, 2019 •

edited

Loading