Original PR: Run pathname specs from ruby/spec in CI and fix them#62
Closed
eregon wants to merge 9 commits intoruby:masterfrom
Closed
Original PR: Run pathname specs from ruby/spec in CI and fix them#62eregon wants to merge 9 commits intoruby:masterfrom
eregon wants to merge 9 commits intoruby:masterfrom
Conversation
* Provides extra testing and coverage.
* Found by ruby/spec, and confirmed pathname.c did the same.
* Found by ruby/spec, and confirmed pathname.c did the same.
* This has no test in test_pathname.rb, that is why it was missed. * Found by ruby/spec, and confirmed pathname.c did the same.
* There is no point to call IO.sysopen and that's the last IO method, with Pathname we know it's always a file path.
* jruby/jruby#8972 but also at least 2 more incompatibilities.
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
#60 as it was originally, before rebasing on top of #61.
Opened this PR to make the changes clearer as the rebase made some commits less clear.