ksail 3.1.0 (new formula)

[devantler]

• Have you followed the guidelines for contributing?
• Have you ensured that your commits follow the commit style guide?
• Have you checked that there aren't other open pull requests for the same formula update/change?
• Have you built your formula locally with HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Is your test running fine brew test <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Does your build pass brew audit --strict <formula> (after doing HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>)? If this is a new formula, does it pass brew audit --new <formula>?

---

[github-actions]

Thanks for contributing to Homebrew! 🎉 It looks like you're having trouble with a CI failure. See our contribution guide for help. You may be most interested in the section on dealing with CI failures. You can find the CI logs in the Checks tab of your pull request.

[SMillerDev]

We frown on authors submitting their own work unless it is very popular.

https://docs.brew.sh/Acceptable-Formulae#niche-or-self-submitted-stuff

[SMillerDev]

https://docs.brew.sh/Acceptable-Formulae#we-dont-like-binary-formulae

[SMillerDev]

We need a test that exercises the some of the functionality of the app. Version checks or usage checks (foo --version or foo --help) are not sufficient, as explained in the formula cookbook.

In most cases, a good test would involve running a simple test case: run #{bin}/foo input.txt.

• Then you can check that the output is as expected (with assert_equal or assert_match on the output of shell_output)
• You can also check that an output file was created, if that is expected: assert_predicate testpath/"output.txt", :exist?

Some advice for specific cases:

• If the formula is a library, compile and run some simple code that links against it. It could be taken from upstream's documentation / source examples.
• If the formula is for a GUI program, try to find some function that runs as command-line only, like a format conversion, reading or displaying a config file, etc.
• If the software cannot function without credentials, a test could be to try to connect with invalid credentials (or without credentials) and confirm that it fails as expected.
• Same if the software requires a virtual machine, docker instance, etc. to be running.

[devantler]

We frown on authors submitting their own work unless it is very popular.

https://docs.brew.sh/Acceptable-Formulae#niche-or-self-submitted-stuff

Hi @SMillerDev 👋🏻

How is popularity typically determined in these cases? :-) I’ve been trying to push it past the recommended number of stars with the aim of resubmitting it to homebrew-core ("be known," e.g. GitHub repositories should have ≥30 forks, ≥30 watchers, or ≥75 stars). It’s a bit tricky to know when this kind of thing is frowned upon or not, given the project currently has 97 stars.

If you feel it’s still not ready for submission on that basis, I’d rather aim for a more concrete target before resubmitting and addressing the other comments :-)

[SMillerDev]

Very popular (as the requirement for self-submitted) for me would be when tech journalists start writing about it and there's a lot of buzz online.
Popular enough to be merged at all is 75 stars and 30 watchers and forks.

[devantler]

Very popular (as the requirement for self-submitted) for me would be when tech journalists start writing about it and there's a lot of buzz online. Popular enough to be merged at all is 75 stars and 30 watchers and forks.

Makes sense. If you are okay with merging given the star requirement, I would like to fix the issues pointed out. Otherwise I think we should close this PR, and wait to see if KSail gains more traction :-)