Skip to content

Conversation

@rishichawda
Copy link
Member

@rishichawda rishichawda commented Nov 12, 2025

Description

the replacement implementation for concern module was not aligned with the actual active support concern implementation at https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v7.2.3/activesupport/lib/active_support/concern.rb. This PR updates our implementation so that it correctly calls class_eval instead of instance_exec on included block. Additionally, this change matches the included method implementation in the original active support concern module to always call super is base is provided. If not, only then process the block parameter.

This PR also takes care of removing the lockfile and patch file that were probably not intended to be part of git history.

Issues Resolved

[List any existing issues this PR resolves, or any Discourse or
StackOverflow discussions that are relevant]

Check List

Signed-off-by: Rishi Kumar Chawda <[email protected]>
we don't need this here

Signed-off-by: Rishi Kumar Chawda <[email protected]>
activesupport concern implementation https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v7.2.3/activesupport/lib/active_support/concern.rb calls class_eval and not instance_exec. also updated the included method to match activesupport impl so that if base is not nil, it will always call super. this fixes the rspec error that made it return exit 1 even if there were no actual failures.

Signed-off-by: Rishi Kumar Chawda <[email protected]>
@rishichawda rishichawda requested review from a team as code owners November 12, 2025 12:20
@rishichawda rishichawda changed the title Rishichawda/jfm/chef19 remove activesupport take 2 fix the rspec failure in verify Nov 12, 2025
@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

@rishichawda rishichawda merged commit 1eb196e into jfm/chef19-remove-activesupport-take-2 Nov 12, 2025
7 of 8 checks passed
@rishichawda rishichawda deleted the rishichawda/jfm/chef19-remove-activesupport-take-2 branch November 12, 2025 13:08
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants