Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork354
[poc] tests/plugins: test package options#2121
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
base:main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
59e1a02 to97b5737Compare7756618 to23a9196CompareUh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
| { | ||
| plugins.bufferline.enable=true; | ||
| assertions=[ |
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.
would it make more sense to test the package existence in our existing empty test cases?
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.
I think it's nice to keep the "empty" case simple.
Maybe we should consider addingtest.runNvim = false to these assertion-based tests though, since we don't actually need to run neovim if all we care about is the assertion.
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.
Good idea, don't need to waste processing time that way if it's just evaluation time testing.
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.
Makes me think we could do with atest.build toggle to completely disablebuildingfinalPackage, although we'd probably still want to ensure it is evaluated somehow (just not built)
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.
Makes me think we could do with a
test.buildtoggle to completely disablebuildingfinalPackage
This was added astest.buildNixvim which also implicitly disablestest.runNvim.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
| assertion= | ||
| config.extraPlugins!=[] | ||
| &&lib.any( | ||
| x:lib.trace"${x.pnameor""}"x.pnameornull=="bufferline.nvim" |
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.
Looking on noogle, there's alsolib.getName, although I think that could fail when encountering submodule-type plugin definitions...
Bump, what should we do with this ? |
Just a little POC from a discussion about testing options functionality working, as expected for when we add or don't add packages.