Update derive_lang_from_path to derive from any part of path

[george-gca]

🔤 Polyglot PR

Currently derive_lang_from_path only considers small parts of the path. This changes to consider any part in any/part/of/the/path.txt. This allows, for example, creating files like assets/data/en-us/cards.json and assets/data/pt-br/cards.json and setting its permalink to /assets/data/cards.json.

I need help setting tests for this, I have no idea where to start.

Type of change

• Docs update (changes to the readme or a site page, no code changes)
• Ops wrangling (automation or test improvements)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change that fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Sweet release (needs a lot of work and effort)
• Something else (explain please)

Checklists

• If modifying code, at least one test has been added to the suite

[george-gca]

Now just missing the testing part.

[untra]

fwiw I've made progress writing rspec tests for derive_lang_from_path, and in the process I've lost faith doc.relative_path actually works at all. I haven't forgotten about this, but derive_lang_from_path needs even further adjustment.

I'm coordinating stories and work for a v1.9 release. Thanks again for your help @george-gca ! keep poking me, I really appreciate your contributions and support.

[george-gca]

Just out of curiosity, what are the advantages of rspec?

I made a fork of an official jekyll plugin, and I saw that they use minitest. Tbh I don't have enough knowledge of testing in ruby.

[untra]

Just out of curiosity, what are the advantages of rspec?

I made a fork of an official jekyll plugin, and I saw that they use minitest. Tbh I don't have enough knowledge of testing in ruby.

both testing specs are fairly similar and can accomplish the same things. I don't think one library is better than the other.
However I have already established a number of rspec tests and I don't want to consider a different ruby testing library unless someone gives me a good reason to.

check out PR #227 I opened implementing a few tests for derive_lang_from_path. I'm inclined to merge in this PR, and then mine to add the tests and give you credit for the edits.

[george-gca]

Thanks, it would be nice. Also, is it possible to add some kind of code coverage badge? Maybe it would be useful to have this, or not.

[untra]

approving and merging this, before adding in tests

[untra]

Thanks, it would be nice. Also, is it possible to add some kind of code coverage badge? Maybe it would be useful to have this, or not.

will get to this for the next release. I'm making an issue to followup on this.