Closed grahamas closed 1 year ago
Base: 96.57% // Head: 96.66% // Increases project coverage by +0.08%
:tada:
Coverage data is based on head (
d3692e4
) compared to base (09b1008
). Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.
:umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
src/$(package_name).jl
file is definitely enough. Any further would be going into linter territory, which is rather out of scope for this package.Ok, I think it's all done. It now checks for 1) version number, 2) UUID, and 3) module file at src/pkg_filename.jl. With tests for all three checks. It also tests handling package names like Flux.jl and Flux.exe and Flux.exe.jl correctly (I'm not totally sure the .exe is legal but like you said, not trying to be a linter--- local registries could do something weird).
You were right about the test failure: the tests run fine on my machine when I change defaultBranch to master.
aside: is register
supposed to return nothing? why not return do_register
?
It also tests handling package names like Flux.jl and Flux.exe and Flux.exe.jl correctly
You've been overthinking this. The repository might be named Flux.jl
but the package can't possibly be. Flux.jl
would be syntax for the jl
submodule of the Flux
module.
is register supposed to return nothing?
Yes, that's intentional. Cf https://github.com/GunnarFarneback/LocalRegistry.jl/pull/22#issuecomment-727644620.
You've been overthinking this. The repository might be named Flux.jl but the package can't possibly be. Flux.jl would be syntax for the jl submodule of the Flux module.
Oof you're right. I got rid of the code accounting for that "possibility" in this commit.
Looks great, thanks
Closes #60.
Checks that the Project.toml defines both
version
anduuid
, and tells the user that it is missing if they are not found.Also adds tests for these cases.
Currently two problems: 1) There's a failing test on my machine (see below). The failure is independent of my tests, though. 2) Properly, should also check that the Project.toml is associated with a file
$(project_dir)/src/$(package_name).jl
that defines a module of the correct name. I have a discourse post up to see if checking for being a valid package is already a solved problem (https://discourse.julialang.org/t/canonical-way-to-check-if-a-project-is-a-package/90827).The error I get during testing (both with and without the changes on this branch)