Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Match partial results in completion (#1386) #1460
Thanks! I added a few line comments.
I'm also wondering if it would be better to add a keyword argument to activate that behaviour to make sure it's only active with the commandline - I think currently you'll get the partial matching even when e.g. spawning commands from a userscript, which I think is undesirable?
Current coverage is 77.55%
@@ master #1460 diff @@ ========================================== Files 104 104 Lines 14803 14809 +6 Methods 0 0 Messages 0 0 Branches 2362 2365 +3 ========================================== + Hits 11478 11484 +6 Misses 2895 2895 Partials 430 430
I've fixed the comments and fixed some of the issues that pylint and flake8 pointed out with tox. I moved the code to a different method as pylint was advising that I had too many branches.
As far as the userscripts, I tried a couple of userscripts and had no problems with executing them.
With the if cmdstr in valid_command, I had taken the issue to mean that they wanted it to autocomplete whatever had been typed. If I used if cmdstr in valid_command, it selects string matches in strings that don't begin with what's been typed. If you want, I can change it to if cmdstr in valid_command anyway though, but that's why I had used String.find() instead of using in.
What can I do about the unexpected coverage changes that codecov reported? I'm fairly new to this.
Yeah, my point is that an userscript now can also do e.g.
Ah! I think this is equivalent to
You can ignore them. I originally turned off codecov reporting for pull requests as things aren't quite ready for that yet, but it seems like they changed their configuration recently.
What also would be nice is if you could add a test for this. Something like this in
Scenario: Partial commandline matching (#1386) When I run :message-i "Hello World" Then the message "Hello World" should be shown
A smaller/faster unittest should also be easy to add here, check the existing ones in
Jun 6, 2016
4 of 5 checks passed
I'm sorry for my absence. I had a pretty unexpected situation come up out
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Florian Bruhin firstname.lastname@example.org