Skip to content

Upgrade sinatra dependency to 4.2.1 #18305

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: 9.2
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Upgrade sinatra dependency to 4.2.1 #18305

wants to merge 3 commits into from
+3 −3

Conversation

mashhurs
Copy link
Contributor

Release notes

[rn:skip]

What does this PR do?

Upgrades sinatra dependency to 4.2.1

Why is it important/What is the impact to the user?

Checklist

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • I have made corresponding change to the default configuration files (and/or docker env variables)
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works

Author's Checklist

  • [ ]

How to test this PR locally

Related issues

Use cases

Screenshots

Logs

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

🤖 GitHub comments

Expand to view the GitHub comments

Just comment with:

  • run docs-build : Re-trigger the docs validation. (use unformatted text in the comment!)

mashhurs
mashhurs commented Oct 14, 2025
View reviewed changes
Gemfile.jruby-3.1.lock.release
mustermann (~> 3.0)
rack (>= 3.0.0, < 4)
rack-protection (= 4.1.1)
rack-protection (= 4.2.1)
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks like rack-protection also aligns with sinatra version. I have compared with main Gemlock.file that other sub-dependencies like base64, logger, rack boundaries do not change (make sure we don't get big changes besides our intention).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yep, good catch

donoghuc
donoghuc approved these changes Oct 14, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@donoghuc donoghuc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i like it. Good if CI is!

@elasticmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

elasticmachine commented Oct 14, 2025 •
edited
Loading

💛 Build succeeded, but was flaky

Failed CI Steps

History

@mashhurs
Copy link
Contributor Author

mashhurs commented Oct 14, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Somehow one of the PQ CIs (part-2-of-6) hung for more than hour, retried.

@mashhurs mashhurs self-assigned this Oct 15, 2025
@mashhurs mashhurs marked this pull request as draft October 15, 2025 03:17
@mashhurs mashhurs marked this pull request as ready for review October 22, 2025 16:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@donoghuc donoghuc donoghuc approved these changes

Assignees

@mashhurs mashhurs

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@mashhurs @elasticmachine @donoghuc