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

Please add a prefix to test-helper.el to avoid conflicts with 68 other packages #42

Closed
tarsius opened this issue Feb 11, 2017 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@tarsius
Copy link
Contributor

tarsius commented Feb 11, 2017

There exist at least 69 packages that contain a file named test-helper.el that also provides the feature test-helper.

This leads to issues for users who have at least two of these packages installed. It is unlikely that such a user would be able to run the tests of all of those packages. If the primary test file of one of those packages does (require 'test-helper), then it is undefined which of the various test-helper.el files gets loaded. Which it is, depends on the order of the load-path.

To avoid this conflicts, you should rename your test-helper.el to <your-package>-test-helper.el and adjust the feature and symbol prefixes accordingly.

Also don't forget to update the require form in your primary test file and/or update references to the library/feature elsewhere. Also, if your primary test file is named something like test.el, then please consider renaming that too (same for any other utility elisp files your repositoroy may contain).

Thanks!

PS: This issue is a bit generic because I had to open 69 issues.

@tarsius
Copy link
Contributor Author

tarsius commented Feb 11, 2017

Uh uh, you have already done it. You might have to revert. Sorry about that.


I've been informed, that ert-runner automatically loads the test-helper.el file. So you should not rename that file. Instead please see this issue, where I suggest that the (provide 'test-helper) should be dropped instead. Please accept my apologize for opening these issues prematurely.

@zonuexe zonuexe reopened this Feb 11, 2017
@zonuexe
Copy link
Collaborator

zonuexe commented Feb 11, 2017

@tarsius
Hmm... Since I recognized (ert-runner--load) function, I replaced it with an explicit load.

I will not immediately revert this change and I'm thinking of waiting for your decision.

@tarsius
Copy link
Contributor Author

tarsius commented Feb 20, 2017

The maintainer of ert-runner agrees that it would be best to remove (provide 'test-runner), and I would like to now encourage you to make that change. For some opinions on the matter please see rejeep/ert-runner.el#38.

Thanks for looking into this and sorry again for jumping the gun a bit.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants