Loosen rest-client version

[lekemula]

Description

Hi there,

In my current organisation, we are trying to upgrade to nylas API v3, however nylas 6.x Ruby SDK conflicts with one of our chargebee-ruby sub-dependency:

chargebee (2.43.0)
      rest-client (>= 1.8, <= 2.0.2)
nylas (6.1.1)
  	  rest-client (~> 2.1, < 3.0) 

While there's already a PR to upgrade chargebee usage of rest-client, chargebee/chargebee-ruby#83, we're unsure whether that will land on time, so we were wondering whether for the time being we could loosen up the version on your side?

When running the CI against rest-client 2.0.0 there seems to be ✅. Do you see any repercussions against doing that?

❯ bi
Fetching gem metadata from https://rubygems.org/.........
Resolving dependencies...
Using rest-client 2.0.0 (was 2.1.0)
Bundle complete! 12 Gemfile dependencies, 47 gems now installed.
Use `bundle info [gemname]` to see where a bundled gem is installed.
❯ be rspec
....................................................................................................................................................................

Finished in 0.05607 seconds (files took 0.39409 seconds to load)
164 examples, 0 failures

This is currently blocking us from migrating to Nylas API v3.

Thanks in advance for your help.

License

I confirm that this contribution is made under the terms of the MIT license and that I have the authority necessary to make this contribution on behalf of its copyright owner.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.56%. Comparing base (8490435) to head (250dd9e).
Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #490      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.85%   99.56%   -0.29%     
==========================================
  Files          24       24              
  Lines         681      694      +13     
==========================================
+ Hits          680      691      +11     
- Misses          1        3       +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
	99.56% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[mrashed-dev]

@lekemula Looking at the changelog from 2.0 -> 2.1 the changes look like they are not critical to how the SDK uses them and as long as the CIs passed then we should be good! Thanks and will have this in the next release.