Skip to content

Conversation

joshuay03
Copy link
Contributor

@joshuay03 joshuay03 commented Mar 10, 2024

Description

A minor thing I noticed when looking into something unrelated. We seem to always be requiring the builtin rack builder even when it isn't used. This PR ensures that Puma::Rack::Builder is only required when Rack::Builder cannot be loaded.

Your checklist for this pull request

  • I have reviewed the guidelines for contributing to this repository.
  • I have added (or updated) appropriate tests if this PR fixes a bug or adds a feature.
  • My pull request is 100 lines added/removed or less so that it can be easily reviewed.
  • If this PR doesn't need tests (docs change), I added [ci skip] to the title of the PR.
  • If this closes any issues, I have added "Closes #issue" to the PR description or my commit messages.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • All new and existing tests passed, including Rubocop.

@joshuay03 joshuay03 force-pushed the lazily-require-puma-rack-builder branch from b7380e9 to 1c624a5 Compare March 10, 2024 05:31
@joshuay03 joshuay03 marked this pull request as ready for review March 10, 2024 05:37
@joshuay03 joshuay03 changed the title Lazily require Puma::Rack::Builder Lazily require Puma::Rack::Builder Mar 10, 2024
@joshuay03 joshuay03 force-pushed the lazily-require-puma-rack-builder branch from 1c624a5 to 686b7e9 Compare March 10, 2024 05:37
@dentarg dentarg merged commit 618257c into puma:master Mar 10, 2024
@joshuay03 joshuay03 deleted the lazily-require-puma-rack-builder branch March 10, 2024 23:15
@joshuay03
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you @dentarg

aramprice added a commit to cloudfoundry/bosh that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
This must be explicitly `required` as of `puma` version `6.5.0`.
Previousl this class was always loaded by `puma` and this is no longer
the case, see: puma/puma#3340
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants