-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Test download of multiple URLs #29
Conversation
- the code can not be tested because of func main and constants (resp. atrributes) - add on func more which can be tested easier than main - add two vars, output file and input file - improve test to multiply URLs to handle new func with two args
Co-authored-by: Glutexo <driezasson@me.com>
To avoid accidentally hitting a real URL.
I pushed some more cleanup with a goal being minimize the amount of changes even if that would mean more things to fix up in a follow-up pull requests. Such reverts are:
I did some more changes that may be worth more cleaning, but I am still trying to minimize the number of changes. Those are:
Please review and squash+merge if 🆗 . |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Check this merge, please @Glutexo
The Now, only the “download a single URL” test uses the mock |
Yes you are absolutely right, Sorry and thanks for check. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You nailed it! Requesting just some formatting changes.
Merged test semantic 23901c4 |
Co-authored-by: Glutexo <driezasson@me.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the fix. The last merge looks good. Reverting to ✅ .
grrhh, stupid mistakes caused by my haste. thanks for review. |
merged added the body func -> e2064af |
Awesome! One step closer. |
The only thing that has been extracted from this pull request and is not merged yet is: That pull request is the only one I’d insist on merging prior to merging this one. My ideas for improvement that have not been merged yet are: Those can be merged first, but they do not necessarily block this pull request. If you’d like to have your pull request merged, I’ll happily update those mentioned after that. All other currently open pull requests are not related to this one and can be addressed completely indepentently. |
To make the merge history more clear. These merges addressed things that were once already in this pull request, but have been extracted to minimize the number of changes:
Opposed to that, the following merges brought in changes from pull requests containing either my own improvement ideas or things that were only discussed. Those may have sourced from working on this pull request, but never were a part of it.
Providing these lists to distinguish what was a part of this pull request and is this good to address prior to merging this one. Other things don’t need to block this, although it is perfectly possible to merge them first as they are generally small changes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have only a suggestion to keep variable lifespan as short as possible. That means, initialize a variable as close to its first (or even only) usage as possible. I don’t insist on fixing it in this pull request. Either fix and merge, or just merge.
Wow. The whitespace fix in e914eb7 created a fat conflict. Update: Resolved. |
fix #26
From @Glutexo: This required a slight change in the executive code so that the
download
function can accept a list of URLs without initializing the real environment application.