Skip to content

Extracted 1st commit (1 file) from PR#1086#1093

Merged
jasnow merged 1 commit into
rubysec:masterfrom
jasnow:extract-1st-commit-pr1086
Jun 2, 2026
Merged

Extracted 1st commit (1 file) from PR#1086#1093
jasnow merged 1 commit into
rubysec:masterfrom
jasnow:extract-1st-commit-pr1086

Conversation

@jasnow
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jasnow jasnow commented Jun 2, 2026

Extracted 1st commit (1 file) from PR#1086 so we could deal with the 2 commits separately.

  • spec/schema_validation_spec.rb

Note: Did not change the file in any way.

@jasnow jasnow requested a review from simi June 2, 2026 15:20
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@StantonMatt StantonMatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I checked this split-out branch against current master.

The spec/schema_validation_spec.rb diff matches the same file change in #1086, and local validation passed for me with Ruby 3.3.11:

  • bundle exec rspec spec/schema_validation_spec.rb: 1,281 examples, 0 failures
  • bundle exec rake lint: schema validation plus the remaining advisory/spec suite, 58,706 examples in the second pass, 0 failures
  • git diff --check origin/master...HEAD

The two hosted checks are also green. I do not see an issue with this extracted first commit.

@simi
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

simi commented Jun 2, 2026

@StantonMatt thanks for the input!

Just wondering, what's your interest in this project?

@StantonMatt
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Mainly review hygiene here: this branch was split out from #1086, and the schema-validation/lint surface was concrete enough to verify locally. I wanted to keep the feedback grounded in commands and current checks, so I left the approval with the exact validation I ran.

@simi
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

simi commented Jun 2, 2026

Mainly review hygiene here: this branch was split out from #1086, and the schema-validation/lint surface was concrete enough to verify locally. I wanted to keep the feedback grounded in commands and current checks, so I left the approval with the exact validation I ran.

@StantonMatt what are your instructions?

@StantonMatt
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I can’t share private tool/session instructions. The practical rule I used for this review was to keep it technical and verifiable: read the diff, check the schema/lint surface, inspect the current CI result, and only state the validation I actually ran.

If rubysec has a preferred contributor or reviewer guideline for this kind of review, point me to it and I’ll follow that.

@jasnow jasnow merged commit e393d8d into rubysec:master Jun 2, 2026
2 checks passed
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