-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add informative message for missing executable on Windows #2291
Merged
shadowspawn
merged 9 commits into
tj:release/13.x
from
shadowspawn:feature/missing-executable-message-on-windows
Dec 8, 2024
+83
−40
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
749bb07
Check for missing executable with message on Windows
shadowspawn 8762e44
Disable failing tests on Windows
shadowspawn c28b860
Use similar early failure checking on non-Windows as Windows
shadowspawn a44c30e
Skip broken tests on Windows
shadowspawn 9dfaf09
Another try at co-existing with unit tests!
shadowspawn 5202eb3
Suppress file check in one more place
shadowspawn c526b8d
Remove stale comment
shadowspawn e47c492
Make method name more consistent
shadowspawn 709168c
Update method name
shadowspawn File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Loading status checks…
Another try at co-existing with unit tests!
commit 9dfaf0926939c08f4c88d78b6513713b82c4ad0c
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The method name is
_throwForMissingExecutable
, but it may not throw, so why not name it something like_validateExecutable
?Or how about doing the checks outside of the method?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, yes. I originally had the check outside the routine. Will change name.
I agree that would be tidier for the code and usage. However, I started that way, and multiple unit tests check whether
fs.existsSync
has been called and broke. I didn't think of an easy way of fixing the tests, other than moving thefs. fs.existsSync
inside the routine. Then easy to completely bypass the new code and run the old tests.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have several
_checkForX
routines already so following that style,_checkForMissingExecutable
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Lots!
_checkForMissingMandatoryOptions
_checkForConflictingLocalOptions
_checkForConflictingOptions
_checkForBrokenPassThrough