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
Add --mir-version command line option. solves MirServer/mir#3058 #3130
Conversation
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.
Hi @pillowtrucker thanks for this!
Some suggestions inline.
Co-authored-by: Michał Sawicz <michal@sawicz.net>
0593ca1
to
9f31c8e
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3130 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 77.83% 77.82% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 1064 1074 +10
Lines 74416 74867 +451
==========================================
+ Hits 57923 58267 +344
- Misses 16493 16600 +107 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Replied in the remaining thread. I'm also not sure if there was a good reason why |
2bac78e
to
20b102d
Compare
pushed new rebased version ignoring the stray commits from before, added a comment about the thrown exceptions and tried to DRY it a little bit |
This reverts commit 20b102d.
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.
Personally, I'd leave blank lines around the if
block to give the reader clearer code "blocks". But not everyone on the project feels the same
…tWithOutput usage.
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.
Thank you!
Tested with miral-shell built from within this repo and with my own compositor linking against this version.
I also looked in unit tests to see if I could add it there, but the existing test for options uses test data rather than real responses from built artifacts. Please let me know if there's another one that I've missed that would be suitable for this.