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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Require bundler so that Bundler::GemfileNotFound becomes available #464

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 9, 2014

Conversation

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@ddfreyne
Member

ddfreyne commented Jul 20, 2014

Without requiring bundler, Bundler::GemfileNotFound does not exist.

Sorry for the delay in fixing this. :(

CC @bobthecow @gpakosz @jugglinmike - 馃憤 if you like (picking some random people to review)

@coveralls

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@coveralls

coveralls Jul 20, 2014

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.2%) when pulling 5b21655 on require-bundler-for-gemfile-not-found-error into f859105 on release-3.7.x.

coveralls commented Jul 20, 2014

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.2%) when pulling 5b21655 on require-bundler-for-gemfile-not-found-error into f859105 on release-3.7.x.

@gpakosz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gpakosz

gpakosz Jul 20, 2014

Member

馃憤

Member

gpakosz commented Jul 20, 2014

馃憤

@bobthecow

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bobthecow

bobthecow Jul 20, 2014

Member

lgtm 馃憤

Member

bobthecow commented Jul 20, 2014

lgtm 馃憤

@FredyFreshFirm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FredyFreshFirm

FredyFreshFirm Jul 21, 2014

Ok
20. juli 2014 18:18 skrev "Justin Hileman" notifications@github.com
f酶lgende:

lgtm [image: 馃憤]


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#464 (comment).

FredyFreshFirm commented Jul 21, 2014

Ok
20. juli 2014 18:18 skrev "Justin Hileman" notifications@github.com
f酶lgende:

lgtm [image: 馃憤]


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#464 (comment).

@jugglinmike

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jugglinmike

jugglinmike Jul 22, 2014

Contributor

I verified this manually, but I'm wondering if we can back this with a test. test/test_gem.rb seems a likely candidate. It probably requires a lot more infrastructure than that file provides (we'd have to temporarily move this project's own Gemfile).

It's likely more appropriate to open a separate issue to create tests for nanoc's executable. Does this seem like a good idea?

Contributor

jugglinmike commented Jul 22, 2014

I verified this manually, but I'm wondering if we can back this with a test. test/test_gem.rb seems a likely candidate. It probably requires a lot more infrastructure than that file provides (we'd have to temporarily move this project's own Gemfile).

It's likely more appropriate to open a separate issue to create tests for nanoc's executable. Does this seem like a good idea?

@FredyFreshFirm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FredyFreshFirm

FredyFreshFirm Jul 22, 2014

Yup

Fredy Ot茅n
22. juli 2014 14:23 skrev "jugglinmike" notifications@github.com f酶lgende:

I verified this manually, but I'm wondering if we can back this with a
test. test/test_gem.rb
https://github.com/nanoc/nanoc/blob/db1db138608d4f6786e1a2482f12ab20359b424c/test/test_gem.rb
seems a likely candidate. It probably requires a lot more infrastructure
than that file provides (we'd have to temporarily move this project's own
Gemfile).

It's likely more appropriate to open a separate issue to create tests for
nanoc's executable. Does this seem like a good idea?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#464 (comment).

FredyFreshFirm commented Jul 22, 2014

Yup

Fredy Ot茅n
22. juli 2014 14:23 skrev "jugglinmike" notifications@github.com f酶lgende:

I verified this manually, but I'm wondering if we can back this with a
test. test/test_gem.rb
https://github.com/nanoc/nanoc/blob/db1db138608d4f6786e1a2482f12ab20359b424c/test/test_gem.rb
seems a likely candidate. It probably requires a lot more infrastructure
than that file provides (we'd have to temporarily move this project's own
Gemfile).

It's likely more appropriate to open a separate issue to create tests for
nanoc's executable. Does this seem like a good idea?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#464 (comment).

@ddfreyne

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ddfreyne

ddfreyne Jul 22, 2014

Member

@jugglinmike The problem is that we already use Bundler to run the tests, which means bundler is already required. bin/nanoc is not tested except manually.

Member

ddfreyne commented Jul 22, 2014

@jugglinmike The problem is that we already use Bundler to run the tests, which means bundler is already required. bin/nanoc is not tested except manually.

@jugglinmike

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jugglinmike

jugglinmike Jul 22, 2014

Contributor

Our dependence on Bundler is no problem for testing this change--it just needs to ensure that the executable functions correctly in the absence of a Gemfile. But I don't mean to bikeshed; you should open a dedicated issue if you think that's worthwhile.

Contributor

jugglinmike commented Jul 22, 2014

Our dependence on Bundler is no problem for testing this change--it just needs to ensure that the executable functions correctly in the absence of a Gemfile. But I don't mean to bikeshed; you should open a dedicated issue if you think that's worthwhile.

@ddfreyne

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ddfreyne

ddfreyne Aug 9, 2014

Member

@jugglinmike It鈥檚 very hard to test properly because it depends on the gems you have installed. You鈥檇 need to have a way of automatically testing with different gem setups (no Bundler + no Gemfile, no Bundler + Gemfile, Bundler + no Gemfile, Bundler + Gemfile).

Member

ddfreyne commented Aug 9, 2014

@jugglinmike It鈥檚 very hard to test properly because it depends on the gems you have installed. You鈥檇 need to have a way of automatically testing with different gem setups (no Bundler + no Gemfile, no Bundler + Gemfile, Bundler + no Gemfile, Bundler + Gemfile).

ddfreyne added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 9, 2014

Merge pull request #464 from nanoc/require-bundler-for-gemfile-not-fo鈥
鈥nd-error

Require bundler so that Bundler::GemfileNotFound becomes available

@ddfreyne ddfreyne merged commit 9eb14fd into release-3.7.x Aug 9, 2014

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci The Travis CI build passed
Details

@ddfreyne ddfreyne deleted the require-bundler-for-gemfile-not-found-error branch Aug 9, 2014

@ddfreyne ddfreyne added the bug label Aug 17, 2014

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment