Support Ruby 3.2

[sue445]

ref #80

Refinement#include is removed since ruby 3.2
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17429

So I use Refinement#import_methods on ruby 3.2+

@joker1007 This patch actually works, but it's a little dirty...
What do you think?

Close #80

[sue445]

[NOTE] This doesn't work on ruby 3.2 😫

$ ruby -v
ruby 3.2.0preview3 (2022-11-24) [x86_64-darwin21]

$ bundle exec rspec
warning: parser/current is loading parser/ruby32, which recognizes3.2.0-dev-compliant syntax, but you are running 3.2.0.
Please see https://github.com/whitequark/parser#compatibility-with-ruby-mri.
/Users/sue445/workspace/github.com/tomykaira/rspec-parameterized/lib/rspec/parameterized/table_syntax.rb:30: warning: RSpec::Parameterized::TableSyntaxImplement has ancestors, but Refinement#import_methods doesn't import their methods
/Users/sue445/workspace/github.com/tomykaira/rspec-parameterized/lib/rspec/parameterized/table_syntax.rb:34: warning: RSpec::Parameterized::TableSyntaxImplement has ancestors, but Refinement#import_methods doesn't import their methods
/Users/sue445/workspace/github.com/tomykaira/rspec-parameterized/lib/rspec/parameterized/table_syntax.rb:38: warning: RSpec::Parameterized::TableSyntaxImplement has ancestors, but Refinement#import_methods doesn't import their methods
/Users/sue445/workspace/github.com/tomykaira/rspec-parameterized/lib/rspec/parameterized/table_syntax.rb:42: warning: RSpec::Parameterized::TableSyntaxImplement has ancestors, but Refinement#import_methods doesn't import their methods
/Users/sue445/workspace/github.com/tomykaira/rspec-parameterized/lib/rspec/parameterized/table_syntax.rb:46: warning: RSpec::Parameterized::TableSyntaxImplement has ancestors, but Refinement#import_methods doesn't import their methods
/Users/sue445/workspace/github.com/tomykaira/rspec-parameterized/lib/rspec/parameterized/table_syntax.rb:50: warning: RSpec::Parameterized::TableSyntaxImplement has ancestors, but Refinement#import_methods doesn't import their methods

An error occurred while loading ./spec/parametarized_spec.rb.
Failure/Error: "integers"      | 1                     | 2                     | 3

NoMethodError:
  undefined method `|' for "integers":String
# ./spec/parametarized_spec.rb:174:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>'
# ./lib/rspec/parameterized.rb:107:in `instance_eval'
# ./lib/rspec/parameterized.rb:107:in `define_cases'
# ./lib/rspec/parameterized.rb:86:in `with_them'
# ./spec/parametarized_spec.rb:180:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'
# ./spec/parametarized_spec.rb:170:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'
# ./spec/parametarized_spec.rb:134:in `block in <top (required)>'
# ./spec/parametarized_spec.rb:13:in `<top (required)>'
Run options: include {:current=>true}

All examples were filtered out; ignoring {:current=>true}

[sue445]

ref. https://github.com/tomykaira/rspec-parameterized/blob/v0.4.0/lib/rspec/parameterized/table_syntax.rb#L6-L23

[sue445]

@joker1007 ping

[joker1007]

I think we can remove both binding_ninja and binding_of_caller from the dependency.
I think it would be better to trigger a LoadError at require time and notice a warning.

[sue445]

Doing that might make your gemspec cleaner.

However instead, gem users need to write the following in Gemfile, which is inconvenient.

gem "rspec-parameterized"

# for Ruby 3.2+
gem "binding_of_caller"

# for Ruby < 3.2
gem "binding_ninja"

They and we will need to manually modify the Gemfile when upgrading.

So I would rather remove the dependency on binding_ninja and use only binding_of_caller instead.

This keeps the gem users's upgrade costs low and keeps the implementation of this gem simple.

What do you think?

[joker1007]

Actually, I also think it is inconvenient.
But TableSyntax is an optional feature. and binding_ninja and binding_of_caller are native extension libraries that are unnecessary dependencies for some people.

I think requiring all users to compile them makes it harder for casual users.

[sue445]

So How do you think about carving out TableSyntax into a other gem? (e.g. rspec-parameterized-table_syntax )

Example. 1

rspec-parameterized.gemspec

gem.add_dependency 'rspec'

# TODO: Write other minimum required dependencies.

rspec-parameterized-table_syntax.gemspec

gem.add_dependency 'rspec-parameterized'
gem.add_dependency 'binding_of_caller'

Example. 2

This is similar to rails and rspec gems

rspec-parameterized-core.gemspec

gem.add_dependency 'rspec'

# TODO: Write other minimum required dependencies.

rspec-parameterized-table_syntax.gemspec

gem.add_dependency 'rspec-parameterized-core'
gem.add_dependency 'binding_of_caller'

rspec-parameterized.gemspec

gem.add_dependency 'rspec-parameterized-core'
gem.add_dependency 'rspec-parameterized-table_syntax'

[joker1007]

Nice!
It's a better solution.

[sue445]

Separating the gems is a good idea, but separating the gems is not mandatory for Ruby 3.2 support. Also, I think Ruby 3.2 users will be inconvenienced until the gems are separated.

Therefore, we do Ruby 3.2 support with minimal changes in this major version and separate the gems in the next major version? (#82)

I have written a patch at 0760ea6 to minimize dependencies for Ruby 3.2 support

[joker1007]

@sue445
I'm sorry for the late replaying. 🙇
I've submitted one comment.

Thank you!

[sue445]

I recently spoke directly with @joker1007 and I have reached an agreement on this patch.