This repository was archived by the owner on Dec 15, 2022. It is now read-only.
Use atom.packages.getAvailablePackageNames#894
Merged
Conversation
Because it's already there for us! Why use our own implementation?
Now that we don't have our own implementation of getAvailablePackageNames anymore we don't have to test for it!
Contributor
Author
|
Turns out there was already a spec testing for this behavior! The only problem was that the assertion was wrong... |
Contributor
Author
|
Feeling pretty confident about this change (minimally invasive, uses core APIs that rely on the filesystem), so I'm going to merge it. This might be a bit slower than the current implementation since it hits the filesystem every time but it should be fine. My (not-very-scientific) tests don't show any noticeable slowdown. |
1 task
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Because it's already there for us! Why use our own implementation?
Fixes #817
TODO: