updating ruby-version, refactoring ec_crypto_suite to support OpenSSL…

[jonmchan]

Updating library to latest version of ruby and refactoring ECCryptoSuite to support OpenSSL 3.0. Will need to most likely refactor again when ruby/openssl#555 gets merged and released in openssl gem.

Updated dependencies and test suite to support ruby 2.7, 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2. Should we consider dropping support for 2.7?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (c1baee9) 98.58% compared to head (f99691c) 99.88%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #19      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   98.58%   99.88%   +1.30%     
==========================================
  Files          46       46              
  Lines        2469     2588     +119     
==========================================
+ Hits         2434     2585     +151     
+ Misses         35        3      -32     

Files	Coverage Δ
lib/fabric/ec_crypto_suite.rb	100.00% <100.00%> (+28.07%)	⬆️
lib/fabric/entities/identity.rb	93.93% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/fabric/entities/status.rb	100.00% <ø> (ø)
spec/fabric/client_spec.rb	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
spec/fabric/contract_spec.rb	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
spec/fabric/ec_crypto_suite_spec.rb	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...c/fabric/entities/chaincode_events_request_spec.rb	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
spec/fabric/entities/proposal_spec.rb	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
spec/fabric/entities/proposed_transaction_spec.rb	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
spec/fabric/fabric_spec.rb	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 4 more

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[jonmchan]

@ZeroInputCtrl please review - I finished everything I wanted for this PR. We can cut a new release after we merge.

[ZeroInputCtrl]

Why here? Pretty sure the convention is to still use them as development dependencies in the gemspec.

[jonmchan]

Why here? Pretty sure the convention is to still use them as development dependencies in the gemspec.

Rubocop started complaining about it. https://docs.rubocop.org/rubocop/cops_gemspec.html#gemspecdevelopmentdependencies We can disable or modify that rubocop rule if we disagree. Most of my last changes were just to make rubocop happy. It looks like with the latest version, they've introduced several new rules.

[jonmchan]

rubocop/rubocop#11469 here's the discussion on Gemfile vs gemspec.

[qlty-cloud-legacy]

Code Climate has analyzed commit f99691c and detected 0 issues on this pull request.

View more on Code Climate.