logstash-core* version constrains problem

[colinsurprenant]

currently our gemspecs uses constrains on logstash-core (and soon logstash-core-event), let's call them the core gems, using a pattern similar to:

s.add_runtime_dependency "logstash-core", '>= 1.4.0', '< 2.0.0'

the problem with this notation is that a logstash-core gem release version 2.0.0.rc1 is considered prior to 2.0.0, because it is a "pre-release" version so a gem version 2.0.0.rc1 would satisfy the < 2.0.0 constrain.

Obviously the intent in specifying < 2.0.0 is to exclude anything 2.0.ish but I guess that semantically the current behaviour is arguable.

One possible solution is to specify ~> 1.4 but then this notation does not allow any pre-release versions to satisfy the constrain which is bad since we need to release pre-release beta/rc packages that uses pre-release gem versions.

I am not sure what our options are. A solution is required for current and future releases and should ideally be also applied to the 1.5 branch.

This related to #4235 logstash-plugins/logstash-output-file#22 #4188 #4231

[colinsurprenant]

maybe use a crazy high version number for the upper bound?

s.add_runtime_dependency "logstash-core", '>= 1.4.0', '< 1.999.0' 

[jordansissel]

Ugh. SemVer strikes again :(

[jordansissel]

I think I'm OK with 1.999.0 w/ a comment explaining why.

Alternately, I think the "right" solution is probably using ~> 1.4.0 which should enforce the same thing as the < 1.999.0 but with maybe more clear intent?

[jordansissel]

I totally didn't finish reading your description. I see oyu already proposed ~> hehe

[jordansissel]

We can try < 1.999.0 w/ a comment explaining the intent (prerelease/beta allowed) and see how that flies?

[purbon]

@colinsurprenant your proposal looks ugly to me (too hacky for now), I would do a bit more research or stick with the `~>`` as I proposed in logstash-plugins/logstash-output-file#22.

[jordansissel]

I comfort myself in that this isn't a unicode problem, at least ;P

[colinsurprenant]

@purbon but ~> is not a solution because we can't use pre-release gems which we do when we release betas or RCs.

I am not saying < 1.999.0 is the only solution, it's just the first one that came to mind.

[colinsurprenant]

wondering if it would make a difference if we use < 2 or < 2.0 instead of < 2.0.0 ?

[colinsurprenant]

nope.

irb(main):011:0> Gem::Requirement.new(">= 1.4.0", "< 2.0.0").satisfied_by?(Gem::Version.new("2.0.0.beta1"))
=> true
irb(main):012:0> Gem::Requirement.new(">= 1.4.0", "< 2.0").satisfied_by?(Gem::Version.new("2.0.0.beta1"))
=> true
irb(main):013:0> Gem::Requirement.new(">= 1.4.0", "< 2").satisfied_by?(Gem::Version.new("2.0.0.beta1"))
=> true

[colinsurprenant]

note that the above is only the rubygem requirement validation and does not account for bundler's selection, which excludes pre releases when using ~> with a gem released version, because on the rubygem side this satisfies the constrain

irb(main):014:0> Gem::Requirement.new("~> 1.4").satisfied_by?(Gem::Version.new("1.5.0.beta1"))
=> true

but as expected not this

rb(main):015:0> Gem::Requirement.new("~> 1.4").satisfied_by?(Gem::Version.new("2.0.0.beta1"))
=> false

but bundler won't select it in the first place.