Different behavior to Ruby 2.3.0's dig

[agross]

ruby_dig under 2.2.4

require 'ruby_dig'
{ foo: "bar" }.dig(:foo, :baz)
# => nil

Ruby 2.3.0

{ foo: "bar" }.dig(:foo, :baz)
# => TypeError: String does not have #dig method

[ColinDKelley]

It's true. The Ruby 2.3 version of dig is sadly (IMO) useless because of
this. You will get similar exceptions if you try to dig into an Array with
a hash key. :(

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Alexander Groß notifications@github.com
wrote:

ruby_dig under 2.2.4

require 'ruby_dig'
{ foo: "bar" }.dig(:foo, :baz)# => nil

Ruby 2.3.0

{ foo: "bar" }.dig(:foo, :baz)# => TypeError: String does not have #dig method

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#5, or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAKKb8A2Rw_nOj54YS47eiN9tq9pwLYaks5qQABNgaJpZM4I_S0X
.

[agross]

Seconded! My concise dig invocations need to be replaced by fetch(:key, {}) or otherwise convoluted code, now that I tried to run my code against 2.3.

For the sake of the spare time of other developers, I would rather have the ruby_dig gem be compatible with Ruby >= 2.3 or be removed/yanked. I need to change lots of code now because the dig flavor provided by the gem is not as portable as I thought.

[ColinDKelley]

I agree.

I don't have the time to change this gem to be compatible, but if you'd
like to do that I'd be happy to accept the PR. Or I can just yank the gem.

-Colin

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Alexander Groß notifications@github.com
wrote:

Seconded! My concise dig invocations need to be replaced by fetch(:key,
{}) or otherwise convoluted code, now that I tried to run my code against
2.3.

For the sake of the spare time of other developers, I would rather have
the ruby_dig gem be compatible with Ruby >= 2.3 or be removed/yanked. I
need to change lots of code now because the dig flavor provided by the
gem is not as portable as I thought.

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#5 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAKKb82bjgHniSY2o6xSlToBgT7HFX3yks5qQAnHgaJpZM4I_S0X
.

[agross]

I don't have the time to change this gem to be compatible, but if you'd like to do that I'd be happy to accept the PR.

There actually is an open PR with the fix. Haven't checked it w.r.t. to compatibility, though.
#4

[ColinDKelley]

Oh, thanks, I lost track of that PR but will try to check it out this week.

-Colin

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Alexander Groß notifications@github.com
wrote:

I don't have the time to change this gem to be compatible, but if you'd
like to do that I'd be happy to accept the PR.

There actually is an open PR with the fixed. Haven't checked it w.r.t. to
compatibility, though.
#4 #4

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#5 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAKKb4efBNpRShp5KOtU6oVu0xq6t2z0ks5qQDeAgaJpZM4I_S0X
.