Open jrochkind opened 1 year ago
OK, we may actually switch the development dependency from linkeddata
to specific sub-dependencies, in order to resolve a problem we had with bundler failing to be able to resolve a consistent dependency tree, see #374, and specifically https://github.com/samvera/questioning_authority/pull/374/commits/5dcf7f56522574e32d0fd18bacce89f180d4885a for which specific sub-dependencies I identified as necessary for tests to pass.
The outstanding issue still is... what are downstream apps supposed to be doing, are they supposed to be adding linkeddata
or sub-dependencies to their own Gemfile as "optional" dependencies for certain features or adapters, and if so which ones?
the linkeddata gem has given us periodic dependency tree challenges. Eg https://github.com/samvera/questioning_authority/pull/374#issuecomment-1239853716. Could/should the way we are using it be changed?
linkeddata
gem is expressed as a development-only dependency, not a full runtime dependency. https://github.com/samvera/questioning_authority/blob/568382478a31cbb901aa58c7087d25e9023017bf/qa.gemspec#L33linkeddata
.linkeddata
(or other, see below) dependency?linkeddata
is mean to be an aggregate gem. Can we instead require/depend on just hte parts we actually use?linkeddata
whose functions we aren't even using).