mk 1.0.2 (new formula)

[ssbarnea]

• 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>)?

---

[request-info]

Please provide a better issue/pull request title and/or description!

[SMillerDev]

It's a new formula so it should be revision 0, which is the default if you don't specify it.

[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.

[ssbarnea]

This tool is excepted to be run inside cloned git repos and doing mk --help will be enough to test a lot of its functionality because almost all commands exposed by it are discovered by the tool by looking at the repository, not being "hardcoded".

Still, running it outside a cloned repo will not produce any desirable results, mainly just a message like CRITICAL Current version of mk works only within git repos. and an exit code 1.

I will try now to improve the test section a little bit but it could be useful if you can tell me how to do chdir to a folder that is already cloned.

Considering that brew already clones the homebrew-core dire, would it be ok to chdir to /usr/local/Homebrew/Library/Taps/homebrew/homebrew-core for the purpose of the test? Is that safe or is there a better way to retrieve that folder location programately?

[carlocab]

Could you not initialise an empty repository and then run mk there?

[SMillerDev]

Suggested change

	virtualenv_install_with_resources(using: "python@3.9")
	virtualenv_install_with_resources

3.9 is the default.

[ssbarnea]

Removing using:... it from here would produce an error when trying to install:

Error: An exception occurred within a child process:
  FormulaUnknownPythonError: The version of Python to use with the virtualenv in the `mk` formula
cannot be guessed automatically because a recognised Python dependency could not be found.

If you are using a non-standard Python dependency, please add `:using => "python@x.y"`
to 'virtualenv_install_with_resources' to resolve the issue manually.

[carlocab]

That's because python@3.9 needs to be a runtime dependency, not a build-only one.

[carlocab]

If you're installing into a virtualenv, then Python is a runtime dependency rather than build-only.

[carlocab]

Let's follow other formulae here and put one line of whitespace in between resource blocks.

When you make this change, please squash it with your first commit and use the commit message

mk 1.0.2 (new formula)

For future reference, please use the preferred commit-message style for homebrew/core. We put the name of the formula first in commit-message headings. Refer to the documentation for more details.

[dawidd6]

==> brew audit mk --online --new-formula
==> FAILED
==> Installing 'bundler' gem
mk:
  * GitHub repository not notable enough (<30 forks, <30 watchers and <75 stars)
Error: 1 problem in 1 formula detected

Sorry but this project is currently not notable enough for inclusion in Homebrew. Consider creating a third party tap for this software and resubmit formula here when the project gains more traction.

[ssbarnea]

I can understand that rule and the limits seem reasonable to me. What is interesting is that yesterday I run the online check and it passed without reporting the lack of popularity issue.