Skip to content
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

feat: warn when clang-format fails #62

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Oct 19, 2017
Merged

feat: warn when clang-format fails #62

merged 6 commits into from
Oct 19, 2017

Conversation

kjin
Copy link
Contributor

@kjin kjin commented Oct 13, 2017

No description provided.

@ofrobots
Copy link
Contributor

Odd that travis wasn't launched for this.

@kjin
Copy link
Contributor Author

kjin commented Oct 14, 2017

@ofrobots Probably because it's unmergeable... rebased

@DominicKramer
Copy link

LGTM: provided the tests pass

Copy link
Contributor

@ofrobots ofrobots left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM if the coverage impact is positive.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Oct 17, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #62 into master will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #62      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   99.58%   99.59%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files           8        8              
  Lines         241      249       +8     
  Branches        8       10       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits          240      248       +8     
  Misses          1        1
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
test/test-kitchen.ts 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
src/clean.ts 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0f8a049...dbb6630. Read the comment docs.

@ofrobots
Copy link
Contributor

When landing, make sure the commit includes the 'Fixes: #60' metadata.

@kjin
Copy link
Contributor Author

kjin commented Oct 19, 2017

Since the approvals were issued, I added a test... was able to get code coverage to increase by 0.01%

A point of possible contention is here. The explanation is that exec shouldn't actually be promisified the way it is because the callback may populate err and stdout/stderr. So I added a new function to always resolve with an exit code (though most places still use the now-renamed "simple" execp)

Also, two things happened:

  • clang-format updated, meaning things had to be re-formatted
  • chalk got built-in TS definitions that clash with @types/chalk, so I removed the dependency on the latter (2e4711a)

@DominicKramer @ofrobots PTAL at the two linked things.

const renamep = pify(fs.rename);
const ncpp = pify(ncp.ncp);

const execp =
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This deserves a comment. Also, we should probably look for an ecosystem module for execp.

@ofrobots
Copy link
Contributor

Rule of thumb: if you have explain why some code is the way it is in the PR, you probably also need it as a comment.

LGTM once that is addressed.

@kjin kjin merged commit d8789a4 into google:master Oct 19, 2017
@kjin kjin mentioned this pull request Jun 26, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants