Pass answers to completion message template #176
Conversation
| @@ -54,7 +53,7 @@ export default function generateTemplate(name, src, dest, done) { | |||
| } | |||
| log.success('Project created'); | |||
| done(); | |||
| logMessage(opts.completionMessage, data); | |||
| logMessage(opts.completionMessage, { data, ...metalsmith.metadata() }); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, totally! Otherwise it just gets destructured as { data: data }. Nice catch, thx :)
| @@ -54,7 +53,7 @@ export default function generateTemplate(name, src, dest, done) { | |||
| } | |||
| log.success('Project created'); | |||
| done(); | |||
| logMessage(opts.completionMessage, data); | |||
| logMessage(opts.completionMessage, { ...data, ...metalsmith.metadata() }); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you think about flipping the order on these? To make sure that destDirName and inPlace are consistent, even if they also are one of the answers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point, but I'd lean more towards validating keys in prompts as soon as they come and making sure that destDirName and inPlace are not used, because otherwise we end up with some confusion ("I've declared my inPlace and it's a different value in completionMessage and in rendered template").
Early error "inPlace is a reserved property" may help us avoid it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have now looked into this some more I have found one bug/incorrect behavior, and one regression from #171.
I think we should actually mutate metalsmith.metadata(), something that seems like a somewhat normal pattern and it would make it possible to read inPlace and destDirName in the questions as well. Additionally noEscape is ignored after #171, and should actually me respected always as it was before.
I think we should either manage this in this PR changing the purpose of it or (maybe better) close this PR and open a new. The changes done here should I think be considered a bug, and not a lack of feature. 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, seems reasonable :) I'll take a closer look at it on monday
|
Closing this one and will open subsequent to address regression caused by #171 first |
This will allow us to come up with better completion messages based on user answers.