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

[dependency] relax multipart_post dependency version requirement #20870

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 18, 2023
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension


Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion Gemfile.lock
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ PATH
json (< 3.0.0)
jwt (>= 2.1.0, < 3)
mini_magick (>= 4.9.4, < 5.0.0)
multipart-post (~> 2.0.0)
multipart-post (>= 2.0.0, < 3.0.0)
naturally (~> 2.2)
optparse (~> 0.1.1)
plist (>= 3.1.0, < 4.0.0)
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion fastlane.gemspec
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
spec.add_dependency('plist', '>= 3.1.0', '< 4.0.0') # Needed for set_build_number_repository and get_info_plist_value actions
spec.add_dependency('CFPropertyList', '>= 2.3', '< 4.0.0') # Needed to be able to read binary plist format
spec.add_dependency('addressable', '>= 2.8', '< 3.0.0') # Support for URI templates
spec.add_dependency('multipart-post', '~> 2.0.0') # Needed for uploading builds to appetize
spec.add_dependency('multipart-post', '>= 2.0.0', '< 3.0.0') # Needed for uploading builds to appetize
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Initially, I thought ~> 2.0.0 and >= 2.0.0, < 3.0.0 were equivalent, but I see the difference now. I suppose we could change ~> 2.0.0 to ~> 2, which is simpler, but that would go against the code style pattern being used nearly-throughout this file so I think this is better :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, I followed the style I saw in the rest of that .gemspec file.

spec.add_dependency('word_wrap', '~> 1.0.0') # to add line breaks for tables with long strings

spec.add_dependency('optparse', '~> 0.1.1') # Used to parse options with Commander
Expand Down