Skip to content

Conversation

@herwinw
Copy link
Member

@herwinw herwinw commented Dec 27, 2025

No description provided.

Comment on lines +36 to +42
it "does not need explicit `require 'set'`" do
output = ruby_exe(<<~RUBY, options: '--disable-gems', args: '2>&1')
puts (1..3).to_set.to_a.inspect
RUBY

output.chomp.should == "[1, 2, 3]"
end
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure what this spec achieves, that to_set works even if set isn't required?
It can't really test if to_set does or not require/autoload Set under the hood.
So I'm hesitating whether this is worth keeping, partly because ruby_exe tests are slow and the value seems minimal here, since Set being always available is or should be tested elsewhere.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It was a copy-paste from core/enumerable/to_set_spec.rb, but that one has been removed in commit d871546

I think these specs started as a way to test the autoload in Ruby 3.2, but since Ruby 3.2 is now the minimal version and we don't require set anywhere in the specs, it should probably be okay to just remove it.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#1323 removes it

@eregon eregon merged commit 2358c7c into ruby:master Jan 4, 2026
13 checks passed
eregon added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 4, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants