Make pod tests pass, and run them from make
#567
Conversation
|
Hrm, I take it Appveyor runs on Windows... |
|
Great thanks! |
|
alright, my AppVeyor fix worked :) |
| @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ | |||
| (def ^:dynamic *sync-delete* true) | |||
| (def ^:dynamic *hard-link* true) | |||
|
|
|||
| (def windows? (boot.App/isWindows)) | |||
| (def ^:dynamic windows? (boot.App/isWindows)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if this is dynamic we might as well rename it to *windows?* maybe?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the change I was most unsure about. The only reason for windows? to be dynamic is for testing purposes, and given that's the case, I didn't think that advertising its dynamic-ness with asterisks was a great idea.
At the time, I didn't know that CI ran on Windows as well, and that fact makes me think there's a better way to do this test? https://github.com/boot-clj/boot/pull/567/files#diff-b6e908691c9bd8d211924e12cfbbcd61R46
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I mean it is just a minor thing anyways, given that we don't know all the implications here we might need to wait better opinion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I agree. I'm working on a better opinion myself :)
| @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| (deftest relative-to-test | |||
| (testing "Nil base" | |||
| (is (= "out/goog/base.js" (str (relative-to nil (io/file "out/goog/base.js")))))) | |||
| (is (thrown? AssertionError (str (relative-to nil (io/file "out/goog/base.js")))))) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Uhm, this one is odd to me
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah... nil is covered by a :pre condition in relative-to. I thought about removing the test, but wasn't sure if there was a good reason for it to be there. I think it's the only other option though, unless the :pre shouldn't be there.
|
Looks very good to me :) |
Relying on `clojure.java.io/file`'s ability to construct paths with platform-specific separators is better than making `boot.file/windows?` dynamic. Also, there's no need to test for nil when there's a precondition guarding against it.
|
Okay @arichiardi, I hope you'll like this. It occurred to me that I also removed the test for AssertionError, since the |
|
Perfect! I think now it looks way way simpler. Maybe the original author of this ns can also chime in. In any case, good job! |
|
@arichiardi I just realized github is still saying that you're requesting changes. Is that still true? If so, I'm not sure what they are. |
|
Uhm no, i am good, let me see if I can cancel the review. |
|
Fantastic, thanks :) |
|
🤘 🎸 🤘 |
Problems with these tests were discovered while working on #566, so I figured I'd take a shot at fixing them. I elected to change the code as little as possible, and change the tests instead, but I'm not super confident I made the right decision in every case. Criticism welcome.