Refactor lockfile generation and deprecate Definition#lock with explicit lockfile
#7047
Conversation
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
martinemde
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2023
Contributor
martinemde
left a comment
martinemde
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good refactor. It makes a lot more sense to me this way. Just a few question and maybe a crazy idea that you can probably ignore.
4 tasks
deivid-rodriguez
force-pushed
the
refactor-lockfile-generation
branch
from
0222f62 to
6a0c03c
Compare
And consistently pass Pathname's to `Definition.new` like production code does.
martinemde
approved these changes
Jan 26, 2024
Co-authored-by: Martin Emde <martin.emde@gmail.com>
deivid-rodriguez
changed the title
Definition#lock with explicit lockfile
deivid-rodriguez
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2024
Refactor lockfile generation and deprecate `Definition#lock` with explicit lockfile (cherry picked from commit 2e28234)
jeremy
reviewed
Sep 23, 2024
Edouard-chin
added a commit
to Edouard-chin/rubygems
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 13, 2025
- Ref ruby#8917 - ### Problem Prior to Bundler 2.5.6, running `bundle lock --update foo --lockfile Gemfile_bumped.lock` would update only the foo gem and write the lockfile to the `Gemfile_bumped.lock`. In Bundler 2.5.6 and above running the same command, updates absolutely all gems. This change is related to ruby#7047 ### Solution Build the definition using the existing lockfile, not the one passed in the `--lockfile` as it may not exist. Dump the definition into a new lockfile.
Edouard-chin
added a commit
to Edouard-chin/rubygems
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 13, 2025
- Ref ruby#8917 - ### Problem Prior to Bundler 2.5.6, running `bundle lock --update foo --lockfile Gemfile_bumped.lock` would update only the foo gem and write the lockfile to the `Gemfile_bumped.lock`. In Bundler 2.5.6 and above running the same command, updates absolutely all gems. This change is related to ruby#7047 ### Solution Build the definition using the existing lockfile, not the one passed in the `--lockfile` as it may not exist. Dump the definition into a new lockfile.
Edouard-chin
added a commit
to Edouard-chin/rubygems
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2025
- Ref ruby#8917 - ### Problem Prior to Bundler 2.5.6, running `bundle lock --update foo --lockfile Gemfile_bumped.lock` would update only the foo gem and write the lockfile to the `Gemfile_bumped.lock`. In Bundler 2.5.6 and above running the same command, updates absolutely all gems. This change is related to ruby#7047 ### Solution We decided to expose the `write_lock` method rather than going through a complex deprecation cycle of the `lock` method. This commit applies the same business logic as prios to 2.5.6 where, we build the definition using the existing lockfile, make changes to the definition and dump it into the desired lockfile.
deivid-rodriguez
pushed a commit
to Edouard-chin/rubygems
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 26, 2025
- Ref ruby#8917 - ### Problem Prior to Bundler 2.5.6, running `bundle lock --update foo --lockfile Gemfile_bumped.lock` would update only the foo gem and write the lockfile to the `Gemfile_bumped.lock`. In Bundler 2.5.6 and above running the same command, updates absolutely all gems. This change is related to ruby#7047 ### Solution We decided to expose the `write_lock` method rather than going through a complex deprecation cycle of the `lock` method. This commit applies the same business logic as prios to 2.5.6 where, we build the definition using the existing lockfile, make changes to the definition and dump it into the desired lockfile.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
What was the end-user or developer problem that led to this PR?
No user problem, but came up with a refactoring that I believe makes the code better and easier to customize.
I think this may help bootboot remove some monkey patches.
What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR?
This PR deprecates passing a file to
Definition#lock. Instead, it will always lock the lockfile the definition was built for.Make sure the following tasks are checked