added ruby 2.5 to supported versions

[commx]

Current Ubuntu LTS release ("bionic") ships with Ruby 2.5.x, which is not covered in the supported versions. Added it to supported versions. Tests do pass.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.02%) to 91.99% when pulling fb597b8 on commx:ruby25-support into 81ffec2 on aws:master.

[commx]

Tests for Ruby compatibility didn't exist yet, right? Unfortunately I have no experience with Ruby at all, so I can't provider any unit tests for that right now. Instead, I've updated the .travis.yml to include 2.4 and 2.5 RVM versions to check - all of them have passed so far.

[fleaz]

There is already an open PR which adds 2.5 support: #147

[commx]

That's right, but the other PR only adds the newer version to the install script, but not to the actual codedeploy-agent script.

[emmceemoore]

@rohkat-aws, can you provide some guidance on what, if anything, still needs to be done to get this approved? Thanks

[rohkat-aws]

@emmceemoore as i have mentioned earlier, we need to verify this works with ruby 5.1, hence the tests.

[emmceemoore]

Ruby 2.5 was added to the travis.yml file in fb597b8 and the existing tests passed with that version of Ruby. (I assume that Travis is running your unit tests.)

Are you suggesting that 2.5.1 be added to the travis.yml? Or are you referring to some new tests that need to be created? If so, some guidance would be much appreciated. Thanks

[emmceemoore]

@rohkat-aws?

[commx]

From my point of view, he wants some new unit tests that check compatibility with recent Ruby versions. This seems not to exist yet and - due to the lack of similar tests for previous Ruby versions - I would not consider this as super critical unless people report issues when using codedeploy-agent with Ruby 2.5 (like this branch version).

Honestly, I'm a bit pissed because of this issue. We have an AWS support guy sitting in the office which told us to report these kind of issues, but he said there is nothing he can do except for raising a +1 internally. We were suggested to use Amazon Linux instead of Ubuntu (which is not a solution for us, because our entire infrastructure uses Debian and Ubuntu and it won't change just because a single piece of software isn't going to support state-of-the-art OS versions). We're paying a lot of money for AWS and I think we can expect their services to support common used OS variants.

When do we can expect to see any progress on this?

[rohkat-aws]

@commx we are tracking this and hope to fix this as soon as possible.

[blackelk]

Hope to get the fix soon)

[emmceemoore]

...we are tracking this and hope to fix this as soon as possible.

@rohkat-aws, can you help us understand what your interpretation of "as soon as possible" is? Realistically, are you expecting this to happen this month? this year?

Personally, I'd much rather the communication be clear (e.g. - "Sorry, we're not going to be able to do this anytime soon. You should look into alternative ways of accomplishing this." or "We'll have it done by ${date}.")

From the outside, it appears like the work has been done for you by an outside contributor and it's not obvious what the hang-up is on your end to roll this into a new release.

[rohkat-aws]

@emmceemoore we are working the request ,but this pull request has failed our internal test . So we are testing it out. And the merging of in the changes do not mean they are released yet. It has to be released publicly to be for the customer to use it.

[emmceemoore]

Realistically, are you expecting this to happen this month? this year?

@rohkat-aws Any thoughts on this?

[commx]

It's quite funny that this PR has failed in the internal tests, but dc22129 was merged to master some time ago which does the same.

[commx]

Closing PR since fixed versions are being rolled out in most regions.