Bump addressable from 2.7.0 to 2.8.1

dependabot[bot] commented 1 year ago

Bumps addressable from 2.7.0 to 2.8.1.

Changelog

Addressable 2.8.1

refactor Addressable::URI.normalize_path to address linter offenses (#430)

remove redundant colon in Addressable::URI::CharacterClasses::AUTHORITY regex (#438)

update gemspec to reflect supported Ruby versions (#466, #464, #463)

compatibility w/ public_suffix 5.x (#466, #465, #460)

fixes "invalid byte sequence in UTF-8" exception when unencoding URLs containing non UTF-8 characters (#459)

Ractor compatibility (#449)

use the whole string instead of a single line for template match (#431)

force UTF-8 encoding only if needed (#341)

#460: sporkmonger/addressable#460 #463: sporkmonger/addressable#463 #464: sporkmonger/addressable#464 #465: sporkmonger/addressable#465 #466: sporkmonger/addressable#466

Addressable 2.8.0

fixes ReDoS vulnerability in Addressable::Template#match

no longer replaces + with spaces in queries for non-http(s) schemes

fixed encoding ipv6 literals

the :compacted flag for normalized_query now dedupes parameters

fix broken escape_component alias

dropping support for Ruby 2.0 and 2.1

adding Ruby 3.0 compatibility for development tasks

drop support for rack-mount and remove Addressable::Template#generate

performance improvements

switch CI/CD to GitHub Actions

Commits

8657465 Update version, gemspec, and CHANGELOG for 2.8.1 (#474)
4fc5bb6 CI: remove Ubuntu 18.04 job (#473)
860fede Force UTF-8 encoding only if needed (#341)
99810af Merge pull request #431 from ojab/ct-_do_not_parse_multiline_strings
7ce0f48 Merge branch 'main' into ct-_do_not_parse_multiline_strings
7ecf751 Merge pull request #449 from okeeblow/freeze_concatenated_strings
41f12dd Merge branch 'main' into freeze_concatenated_strings
068f673 Merge pull request #459 from jarthod/iso-encoding-problem
b4c9882 Merge branch 'main' into iso-encoding-problem
08d27e8 Merge pull request #471 from sporkmonger/sporkmonger-enable-codeql
Additional commits viewable in compare view

Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting @dependabot rebase.

Dependabot commands and options

You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR: - `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR - `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it - `@dependabot merge` will merge this PR after your CI passes on it - `@dependabot squash and merge` will squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it - `@dependabot cancel merge` will cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging - `@dependabot reopen` will reopen this PR if it is closed - `@dependabot close` will close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually - `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself) - `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself) - `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself) - `@dependabot use these labels` will set the current labels as the default for future PRs for this repo and language - `@dependabot use these reviewers` will set the current reviewers as the default for future PRs for this repo and language - `@dependabot use these assignees` will set the current assignees as the default for future PRs for this repo and language - `@dependabot use this milestone` will set the current milestone as the default for future PRs for this repo and language You can disable automated security fix PRs for this repo from the [Security Alerts page](https://github.com/reedhhw/github-slideshow/network/alerts).

changelogg[bot] commented 1 year ago

Hey! Changelogs info seems to be missing or might be in incorrect format. Please use the below template in PR description to ensure Changelogg can detect your changes:

    - (tag) changelog_text

or
```
- tag: changelog_text
```
**OR**
You can add tag in PR header or while doing a commit too
```    
(tag) PR header
```
or
```
tag: PR header
```
Valid tags: **added** / **feat**, **changed**, **deprecated**, **fixed** / **fix**, **removed**, **security**, **build**, **ci**, **chore**, **docs**, **perf**, **refactor**, **revert**, **style**, **test**
Thanks!
For more info, check out [changelogg docs](https://docs.changelogg.io/)

similar-code-searcher[bot] commented 1 year ago

Similar files are

performance-testing-bot[bot] commented 1 year ago

Unable to locate .performanceTestingBot config file

pull-request-quantifier-deprecated[bot] commented 1 year ago

This PR has 4 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

Quantification details

``` Label : Extra Small Size : +2 -2 Percentile : 1.6% Total files changed: 1 Change summary by file extension: .lock : +2 -2 ``` > Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the [PullRequestQuantifier customizations](https://github.com/microsoft/PullRequestQuantifier/blob/main/docs/prquantifier-yaml.md).

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean: - Fast and predictable releases to production: - Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer iterations. - Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times. - Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower: - Bugs are more likely to be detected. - Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected. - Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants: - Small portions can be assimilated better. - Better engineering practices are exercised: - Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems. - Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes. #### What can I do to optimize my changes - Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately - Create a context profile for your repo using the [context generator](https://github.com/microsoft/PullRequestQuantifier/releases) - Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the `Excluded` section from your `prquantifier.yaml` context profile. - Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your `prquantifier.yaml` context profile. - Only use the labels that matter to you, [see context specification](./docs/prquantifier-yaml.md) to customize your `prquantifier.yaml` context profile. - Change your engineering behaviors - For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if: - Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead - Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR). #### How to interpret the change counts in git diff output - One line was added: `+1 -0` - One line was deleted: `+0 -1` - One line was modified: `+1 -1` (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion) - Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification) of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

Was this comment helpful? :thumbsup: :ok_hand: :thumbsdown: (Email) Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

squash-labs[bot] commented 1 year ago

Manage this branch in Squash

Test this branch here: https://dependabotbundleraddressable-2-msvne.squash.io

vizipi[bot] commented 1 year ago

Pull request analysis by VIZIPI

Below you will find who is the most qualified team member to review your code. This analysis includes his/her work on the code included in this Pull request, in addition to their experience in code affected by these changes ( partly found within the list of potential missing files below ) Feedback always welcome

Reviewers with knowledge related to these changes

Match %	Person	Commit Count	Common Files
100.00 %	reedhhw	2	1

Potential missing files from this Pull request

No commonly committed files found with a 40% threashold

Committed file ranks

(click to expand)

99.13%[Gemfile.lock]

reedhhw / github-slideshow