Skip to content

Conversation

@mikeastock
Copy link

No description provided.

@thomaswitt
Copy link

I would appreciate a quick merge. The ruby is outdated since more than half a year.

@icaroryan
Copy link

icaroryan commented Nov 10, 2025

@thomaswitt As a workaround, to remove the ruby requirement version when starting the container, I'm running the following script before installing my gems

# Check Ruby version compatibility
RUBY_VERSION=$(cat .ruby-version | tr -d '[:space:]')
CURRENT_RUBY=$(ruby -v | awk '{print $2}' | cut -d'p' -f1)
echo "Ruby version check: $CURRENT_RUBY (required: $RUBY_VERSION)"

# Removing Ruby version requirement from Gemfile
if [ "$CURRENT_RUBY" != "$REQUIRED_RUBY" ]; then
  echo "Ruby version mismatch — commenting ruby version requirement in Gemfile..."
  # Only comment if the line isn't already commented
  sed -i '' "s/^\s*ruby\s\+['\"][0-9.]\+['\"]/&#/" Gemfile
  # Ignore Gemfile changes for this session
  git update-index --assume-unchanged Gemfile Gemfile.lock
fi

This script will basically go into the Gemfile and comment out the line where we specify the ruby requirement version

This way you can still build your container and install gems without crashing. Chances are all gems from 3.4.4. are compatible to 3.4.7, so it should be fine until this ticket is merged.

@thomaswitt
Copy link

This way you can still build your container and install gems without crashing. Chances are all gems from 3.4.4. are compatible to 3.4.7, so it should be fine until this ticket is merged.

Thanks for the suggestion!

Copy link

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 1302d4ea03

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

### RUBY ###

ARG RUBY_VERSIONS="3.4.4 3.3.8 3.2.3"
ARG RUBY_VERSIONS="3.2.3 3.3.8 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6 3.4.7"

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Badge Restore newest Ruby as default in version list

The Ruby default is derived from the first entry in RUBY_VERSIONS via mise use --global "ruby@${RUBY_VERSIONS%% *}" later in this Dockerfile. By reordering the list to start with 3.2.3, the container’s default Ruby regresses from 3.4.x to 3.2.3, which can break builds relying on newer Ruby features. If the intent was only to add 3.4.5–3.4.7 while keeping the latest as default (as with other language version lists in this file), the order should keep the newest version first.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We're now at 3.4.8 and 4.0.1 and its still not available in the Web UI 🤔
snap

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's worse with Ruby than with node for example, since there are no precompiled binaries available for Ruby. As a result the codex-cloud setup/maintenance script will usually just timeout before it's able to finish compiling.

Took us a while to understand what exactly was going on and why codex in the cloud was so bad at giving reviews and solving problems. Without a working environment it would just kinda guess based on 10 year old out-dated practices it read on the internet

Copy link

@thomaswitt thomaswitt Jan 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@etraut-openai is there any way to prioritze this internally? This issue is definitely not resolved and can be reopened straight away with 4.0.1

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.

5 participants