Use local base64_ functions

[olleolleolle]

This PR completes the move away from the base64 gem.

• First, I removed the development dependency on base64.
• Then I typed all the changes to the test files.
• Then, I added one more local implementation of the base64_ functions.

Then, two tests failed. I ran out of steam. Can you find what didn't add upp, @Earlopain? Update: BUT THEY ONLY FAILED LOCALLY?!

When this is done:

Fixes #422

[Earlopain]

I was writing a whole thing here but someone already went through the trouble in #417

[santiagorodriguez96]

Hi @olleolleolle! Good catch! Thank you for opening another PR for addressing this 🙂

Out of curiosity: is there a reason why you decided to remove the development dependency this time?

Regarding the failing tests:

@Earlopain got it right, the same is happening for me on local machine. If you have more info about the error that you consider might be relevant, please let us know on that issue 🙂

[olleolleolle]

@santiagorodriguez96 Oh, I was just being thorough, one-track minded. It can of course be used as a development dependency.

[santiagorodriguez96]

Tbh I'm a little bit worried about having the implementations of base64 methods in three different places, but I think it's okay for the moment. I'll think about what can we do to prevent that duplication 🙂

[brauliomartinezlm]

hi all! Thank you so much @olleolleolle for doing this. Really appreciate the contribution ❤️

While I know we need to contemplate the removal of Base64 from Ruby's default I think this PR makes me reflect we need to encapsulate all the necessary functions we're adding in a module where we can keep it contained. I'm not very aligned with switching the usage of the dependency in favor of having all this logic spread out through the gem's code.

Would you be willing to evolve this PR to create a module that encapsulates it the logic and can be leveraged from everywhere in the gem?

I'm not gonna mark it "Request changes" (I don't love that feature's emotional communication 😄 ) but regardless of @santiagorodriguez96 approving I think we need to address that first.

Apologies for not jumping in earlier and giving this feedback after some back and forth

[olleolleolle]

Absolutely, I'll poke at making a module, it'll happen in this PR.