Issue #20857 has been updated by ioquatix (Samuel Williams). I was fine with this change, but it broke some of my tests. The solution was to not use string equality, but instead do this: ```ruby # Before expect(thing).to be == '{"x"=>10}' # After expect(thing).to be == {"x"=>10}.to_s ``` It was an easy fix, and I like the new formatting. ---------------------------------------- Bug #20857: Ruby 3.4 seems to have backwards compatibility issues more than its predecessors https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20857#change-110325 * Author: vo.x (Vit Ondruch) * Status: Assigned * Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) * ruby -v: ruby 3.4.0dev (2024-10-15 master 3da3cabf98) +PRISM [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Testing Ruby 3.4 in Fedora, I just hit issue like this in AsciiDoctor test suite: ~~~ 1) Failure: Minitest::Test::TestExtensions::TestIntegration#test_should_assign_captures_correctly_for_inline_macros [test/extensions_test.rb:1382]: --- expected +++ actual @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ "target=\"\", attributes={} -target=\"value,key=val\", attributes={1=>\"value\", \"key\"=>\"val\", \"name\"=>\"value\"} -target=\"\", attributes={\"text\"=>\"\"} -target=\"[text]\", attributes={\"text\"=>\"[text]\"} +target=\"value,key=val\", attributes={1 => \"value\", \"key\" => \"val\", \"name\" => \"value\"} +target=\"\", attributes={\"text\" => \"\"} +target=\"[text]\", attributes={\"text\" => \"[text]\"} target=\"target\", attributes={} -target=\"target\", attributes={1=>\"value\", \"key\"=>\"val\", \"name\"=>\"value\"} -target=\"target\", attributes={\"text\"=>\"\"} -target=\"target\", attributes={\"text\"=>\"[text]\"} +target=\"target\", attributes={1 => \"value\", \"key\" => \"val\", \"name\" => \"value\"} +target=\"target\", attributes={\"text\" => \"\"} +target=\"target\", attributes={\"text\" => \"[text]\"} target=\"target\", attributes={}" ~~~ This suggest that `Hash#inspect` formatting was changed and there are additional spaces around hash rocket. Is the space really worth of the troubles? BTW [here](https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor/issues/4634#issuecomment-24494974...) is AsciiDoctor upstream reaction and I share the sentiment. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/