Issue/PR Create Template Selection Tests #1311
Conversation
| RunE: func(c *cobra.Command, args []string) error { | ||
| templateHandler := githubtemplate.GitHubTemplateHandler | ||
| return issueCreate(c, args, &templateHandler) | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO, We can use this trick to stub anything.
No need to create extra command-specific structs, and build them here and pass them to the command, to be read there.
All that is internally handled by cobra here.
| return &cmdOutStreams, err | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func PrepareCommandArguments(command string) (*cobra.Command, []string, *cmdOut, func(), error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is for setting up the cobra.Command and the args []string, to be directly passed to our functions, so that we can invoke them directly, without relying on cobra to do that.
| "github.com/spf13/pflag" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| func TestPrepareCommandArguments(t *testing.T) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I hope I have covered all major cases/formats here.
| ExtractContents func(filePath string) []byte | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func findNonLegacy(rootDir string, name string) []string { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I unexported these, so that we don't use them directly by mistake, and are reminded to use the handler.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // GitHubTemplateHandler handles all the template related functionalities | ||
| var GitHubTemplateHandler = TemplateHandler{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The handler with the proper working; to be used when not testing.
|
Sure, no problem 😅 👍 |
|
Any updates? Its been quite a few weeks 😅 |
|
@AliabbasMerchant similar apologies as for your other PR: this work got caught by the vortex of our codebase refactor. Are you up for getting this work reconciled with trunk? I think that this testing might actually have become easier as you can now put a template finding helper (for both issue and pr create) into the factory that is passed to commands and inject it in tests. |
|
Okay. Cool. No issues. I kindof lost track amidst the refactoring wave, but hope to resume contributions, seeing that the refactoring part is done, and we are now again open to accept community contributions. 👌 Will do this in 2-3 days and will re-request a review then. |
|
thanks for your patience and understanding, @AliabbasMerchant ! that refactor was sorely needed and there was no elegant way to balance it against incoming PRs. But yes, it's done now; there is still plenty of cleanup we could do but in terms of fundamental changes we don't have anything planned. |
|
@AliabbasMerchant Thank you! Would you be up to consider a potentially simpler avenue of approaching this? The new command structure might make it easier to stub out the current directory in tests, which we could use to point a command to a fixed location on disk where the fixtures for templates reside. That way you wouldn't have to introduce a whole mechanism for mocking template results, and we could keep the diff at minimum. Let me know if you'd like me to sketch out what I had in mind! 🙇 |
|
@mislav Sure. I am planning to do this today. (Sorry for the delay) |
Fixes #956
Replaces #986
I finally figured out how to do this 🥳
(Have organised commits logically, so reviewing commit-wise should be fairly easy; Also, have tried to make sure that there are no breaking changes at any commit)
The first 6 commits are just the prerequisites
The 7th commit contains the sample interactive template selection test
Requesting reviews, especially from @vilmibm and @mislav
(I don't have permissions to request a review via GitHub directly, hence tagging you all 😅 )