Add tests for pre-publish tasks

[itaisteinherz]

We need to add tests for the prerequisite and Git tasks (source/prerequisite-tasks.js and source/git-tasks.js).

---

IssueHunt Summary

bunysae has been rewarded.

Backers (Total: $60.00)

• issuehunt ($60.00)

Submitted pull Requests

• #509 Add pre-publish task tests

---

Tips

• Checkout the Issuehunt explorer to discover more funded issues.
• Need some help from other developers? Add your repositories on IssueHunt to raise funds.

[IssueHuntBot]

@IssueHunt has funded $60.00 to this issue.

---

• Submit pull request via IssueHunt to receive this reward.
• Want to contribute? Chip in to this issue via IssueHunt.
• Checkout the IssueHunt Issue Explorer to see more funded issues.
• Need help from developers? Add your repository on IssueHunt to raise funds.

[itaisteinherz]

Also see #392 (comment).

[MarcoScabbiolo]

Are we talking about unit tests of these files or integration with all the other files they depend on? What is the preferred way to mock modules, both for dependencies and for local ones, global variables or using jest instead of ava?

[itaisteinherz]

Are we talking about unit tests of these files or integration with all the other files they depend on?

Unit tests (for the moment being).

What is the preferred way to mock modules, both for dependencies and for local ones, global variables or using jest instead of ava?

See #29. We'll definitely use ava for testing, and I think either sinon or mockery would do the job here.
@sindresorhus in #29 (comment), how did you intend for the modules to be mocked?

[bunysae]

My idea to solve this problem would be to stub or to mock the commands called with execa. For this purpose, i started creating a little test-double library for execa based on sinon, which should simplify stubbing or mocking execa-commands.

[issuehunt-oss]

@sindresorhus has rewarded $54.00 to @bunysae. See it on IssueHunt

• 💰 Total deposit: $60.00
• 🎉 Repository reward(0%): $0.00
• 🔧 Service fee(10%): $6.00