Add test suite coverage to deployment

[snuggs]

Going off the awesome work we did in #164 we now have a fairly stable (and well tested) build pipeline.

🎉 🎉 🎉 🎉 🎉 🎉 🎉 🎉 🎉 #WOOT!!!! 🎉 🎉 🎉 🎉 🎉 🎉 🎉 🎉 🎉

Coverage & Lint are on deck.

Thanks for setting the bin/crank foundation @tmornini @pachonk. NOW is where the rubber meets the road.

[snuggs]

https://travis-ci.org/devpunks/snuggsi/builds/402507678

HMMMM. Well the great news is tests work (TOO well). @tmornini @pachonk any idea why the suite is running twice? I know the tests had been running before but perhaps shouldn't be in bin/crank? It works great for local because if any of the steps in bin/crank don't pass it disables deployment.

Thoughts... 🤔

[snuggs]

@brandondees @tmornini @pachonk #PING.

[brandondees]

¯\(ツ)/¯

[brandondees]

$ bin/test && bin/cover does bin/cover run the tests again?

[rianby64]

Looks like it does, @brandondees

[snuggs]

@brandondees @rianby64 hmmm seems like bin/cover is commented tho. @brandondees where do you see this conjunction? I was gonna address after this gets merged. I have no clue why it's running twice. Perhaps @tmornini made some setting somewhere in Travis.

https://github.com/devpunks/snuggsi/pull/175/files#diff-37f78a78f215090e9287557d4f6271bfR6

[rianby64]

Check this out

snuggsi/.travis.yml

Line 20 in 352f820

- bin/test && bin/cover

Right in the .travis.yml you are calling twice the test process.
Just put - bin/crack and that will be enough, I think.
Or, leave it as - bin/cover, because cover already fires the test process.

[snuggs]

@rianby64 you nailed it! I would have never thought to look in there as it was @tmornini and @pachonk who worked on the integration. It feels like there should be a bin/integrate to go with our ontology. @brandondees since i've known him has always reminded me developers should have well named "helpers" as well. Not just code.

"integrate" an "integration" sounds like what we are doing here. Implementation details can be tucked in there. Either way feels better than having a conjunction (&&) for a "single" entry point nonetheless.

I'll "WIP" something up (pun intended) 😎

[snuggs]

@brandondees I guess the first question to ask is are they "bin STUBS" or "SCRIPTS"?

I kinda get stubs...and scripts feels like a little more than what we are doing here (which is just #CATAT "Call A Thing A Thing")

References

• http://blog.barbershoplabs.com/blog/2013/03/01/upgrading-to-rails-40-binstubs
• https://bundler.io/v1.10/bundle_binstubs.html

Tripped over this while updating https://github.com/devpunks/snuggsi/tree/master/bin#bin-scripts

[brandondees]

@snuggs sometimes you can't get away from what people are already calling a thing. sometimes you can (but beware the confusion you'll cause).

binstubs are just scripts that can be executed directly: bin/deploy as opposed to sh bin/deploy

[snuggs]

@tmornini done and done! Bash scripting you'd be proud of. :-)

/cc @rianby64 @brandondees

[brandondees]

@snuggs see, that wasn't so hard was it?