k9s 0.21.2 (new formula)

[crunchtime-ali]

• Have you followed the guidelines for contributing?
• Have you checked that there aren't other open pull requests for the same formula update/change?
• Have you built your formula locally with brew install --build-from-source <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Is your test running fine brew test <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Does your build pass brew audit --strict <formula> (after doing brew install <formula>)?

---

k9s is an insanely handy and popular interactive CLI to deal with Kubernetes clusters. There is an official formula available here https://github.com/derailed/homebrew-k9s/blob/master/Formula/k9s.rb but I think it should be added to the core repo for more exposure.

[crunchtime-ali]

@dawidd6 Oh you introduced mandatory licence specification. This is troublesome in this case because when I specify `license Apache-2.0" I get the error

License mismatch - GitHub license is: NOASSERTION, but Formulae license states: Apache-2.0

What should I do now? In this case https://github.com/derailed/k9s/blob/master/LICENSE is the Apache-2.0 license.

[SMillerDev]

Please add the license statement regardless and we'll check if that goes wrong

[SMillerDev]

We need a test that exercises the some of the functionality of the app. Version checks or usage checks (foo --version or foo --help) are not sufficient, as explained in the formula cookbook.

In most cases, a good test would involve running a simple test case: run #{bin}/foo input.txt.

• Then you can check that the output is as expected (with assert_equal or assert_match on the output of shell_output)
• You can also check that an output file was created, if that is expected: assert_predicate testpath/"output.txt", :exist?

Some advice for specific cases:

• If the formula is a library, compile and run some simple code that links against it. It could be taken from upstream's documentation / source examples.
• If the formula is for a GUI program, try to find some function that runs as command-line only, like a format conversion, reading or displaying a config file, etc.
• If the software cannot function without credentials, a test could be to try to connect with invalid credentials (or without credentials) and confirm that it fails as expected.
• Same if the software requires a virtual machine, docker instance, etc. to be running.

[crunchtime-ali]

Hey @SMillerDev providing a meaningful assertion might be really difficult as k9s only has 3 commands. The closest one to making any sense is just launching the interactive k9s without a command and checking for the the text Boom!! Invalid kubeconfig context detected. However that test will fail on a regular users machine where a Kubernetes config file exists. In that case the interactive CLI would be launched.

[SMillerDev]

If it needs to be in $HOME/.k9s/config.yml you can set ENV['HOME'] to testpath since that will be an empty directory. That way it'll always fail.

[crunchtime-ali]

@SMillerDev I added a test for the last line as well as a thorough explanation on the expected Kubernetes configuration. k9s needs a Kubernetes config, not its own one to run. Most tools around Kubernetes use either ~/.kube/config or the KUBECONFIG environment variable.
If at some point there is a chance to create a better test I will do so.

[crunchtime-ali]

Please add the license statement regardless and we'll check if that goes wrong

I added the License back again.

@dawidd6 Wow, you are acting at lightspeed. It seems to be the right decision to not fail when GitHub does not return anything meaningful. I just created a new repository without a LICENSE file. Then I created a LICENSE file with exactly the same content of the k9s repo LICENSE file. Suddenly GitHub detects it as Apache License 2.0

[chenrui333]

lgtm, thanks!

[BrewTestBot]

@chenrui333 has triggered a merge.