C 0.09 (new ​​formula)

[janten]

C is a shell script that compiles and executes C source code in the shell.

[MikeMcQuaid]

Can this test be modified to do something more substantial than e.g. --version or --help? See cmake.rb for an example of an application formula with a good test and tinyxml2.rb for an example of a library formula with a good test. Thanks!

[ryanmjacobs]

@MikeMcQuaid Hey, currently we have unit testing. Can we just call that?

test do
    Dir.chdir("tests") do
        system "test.sh"
    end
end

[MikeMcQuaid]

It's be good if you can actually just use an invocation of the program to e.g. run a small script. See cmake.rb for something similar.

[MikeMcQuaid]

Note to other @Homebrew/owners: this is a 10 day old but pretty popular project.

[bruno-]

I'd very much love to see this accepted/merged.

[ryanmjacobs]

Okay, v0.08 removes the gnu-sed dependency. Can we update c.rb to use that? Thanks.

[LinusU]

@janten As soon as @ryanmjacobs tags v0.09 (which doesn't use sed at all) we should update the formula to use that and remove the dependency on gnu_sed.

Great work!

[ryanmjacobs]

@LinusU Okay, I've pushed v0.09. 😀

[LinusU]

Nice!

@janten Here are the new values:

  url "https://github.com/ryanmjacobs/c/archive/v0.09.tar.gz"
  sha1 "41d284be0f9d59d45b9cc14e98dbe01ef060c1c1"

[janten]

I just downloaded v0.09 myself and get the SHA1 sum as a17ad8071d68cb8ce9b3e0f11cff8ff9701f2792. I have updated the formula accordingly.

[LinusU]

Hmm, that's strange. Well, as long as it works.

Here is how I got it:

$ curl -s https://github.com/ryanmjacobs/c/archive/v0.09.tar.gz | shasum
41d284be0f9d59d45b9cc14e98dbe01ef060c1c1  -

[janten]

Looks like SHA1 is now deprecated in favor of SHA256, so I updated the formula again.

[xu-cheng]

(testpath/"test.c").write "int main(void){return 0;}"
system bin/"c", "test.c"

[xu-cheng]

@janten Remind you a bit, current test case is incorrect.

[janten]

No, it isn't. c takes input from stdin just fine and the test is meant to be run after the installation, when c will already be in $PATH, not in bin/

[xu-cheng]

First of all, system "echo", "int main(void){return 0;}", "|c" equals echo "int main(void){return 0;}" "|c" in shell. The pipe is fake.

Second, all test have to use full path. Users' environment setting is irrelevant.

[janten]

I'll happily admit that I do not know anything about ruby (and seeing this, I don't really want to deal with it) – my guess was that I would need to write system "echo", … "\"|c\"" to get a string instead of a pipe. I have updated the test accordingly. Even though, I fail to see any reason to use a source code file instead of a simple echo and from other formula's tests I gather that the path should be read from a variable as #{bin} instead of being literal bin/.

[xu-cheng]

If you want to read from pipe. Make test like this:

pipe_output(bin/"c", "int main(void){return 0;}")

As for your question on #{bin} and bin/, they are both OK. "#{bin}/c" equals (bin/"c").to_s.

[MikeMcQuaid]

The last thing I'm a bit hesistant about with this formula: this is not the thing people think of when they think of c. Perhaps the formula name should be something slightly longer to avoid confusion?

[janten]

I can not really think of any other name for it and I guess there is not much of a problem since one cannot install C, the language, anyway. IMHO the x in brew install x should also match the actual command name after the installation. I have repeatedly tried to install vowpal wabbit with brew install vw in the past, where the correct command would have been brew install vowpal-wabbit, which is not really consistent with the installation command for gcc being brew install gcc and not brew install gnu-compiler-collection.

In the end the author should decide the name of his program and as long as this tool is called "c", the formula should have the same name.

[tdsmith]

I have the same concern; it's difficult to imagine an unambiguous and discoverable name for a project called c. Maybe a tap is the best solution.

[ryanmjacobs]

I agree with @janten. It seems intuitive that brew install c would install the c command. No one is going to think that brew install c would install the C language itself, as one cannot possibly do that. The project won't be too ambiguous because the formula does link to a homepage.

[MikeMcQuaid]

No one is going to think that brew install c would install the C language itself, as one cannot possibly do that.

Except someone who doesn't have a huge amount of familiarity with C and doesn't know that it isn't like e.g. ruby.

[MikeMcQuaid]

Please do what @xu-cheng has asked; either write to a file or use pipe_output.

[ryanmjacobs]

Any ideas why the tests are failing?

[tdsmith]

Looks like flakiness on our end; we're having some trouble with our CI hardware.

[jacknagel]

I am passing on this due to the naming issue. In my opinion, "c" is far too ambiguous. Other maintainers, feel free to overrule me, but this has been sitting here untouched for two months.

[MikeMcQuaid]

I agree.