The scope issue pointed out in #3264 wasn't fully addressed. All offending undocumented symbols have been documented.
libraries/nasdf/compilation-tests.lisp is a buggy linter. Besides #3264, it doesn't report the offense when deleting the docstring of a form define via define-command. Even if the implementation would be perfect, I am highly skeptical of the added value to the project. Developer discipline is what we need to aim for first and foremost. The discussion about the fate of this tool doesn't belong here regardless.
Fixes #3264
I think it is beneficial to have a single invocation that triggers the complete test suite. I.e., (asdf:test-system :nyxt/gi-gtk) trigger the test suite of nyxt and nyxt/gi-gtk, whereas (asdf:test-system :nyxt) behaves as before.
Checklist:
Everything in this checklist is required for each PR. Please do not approve a PR that does not have all of these items.
[ ] Git hygiene:
I have pulled from master before submitting this PR
There are no merge conflicts.
[ ] I've added the new dependencies as:
ASDF dependencies,
Git submodules,
cd /path/to/nyxt/checkout
git submodule add https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/nyxt/py-configparser _build/py-configparser
and Guix dependencies.
[ ] My code follows the style guidelines for Common Lisp code. See:
[ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code.
[ ] My code has been reviewed by at least one peer. (The peer review to approve a PR counts. The reviewer must download and test the code.)
[ ] Documentation:
All my code has docstrings and :documentations written in the aforementioned style. (It's OK to skip the docstring for really trivial parts.)
I have updated the existing documentation to match my changes.
I have commented my code in hard-to-understand areas.
I have updated the changelog.lisp with my changes if it's anything user-facing (new features, important bug fix, compatibility breakage).
Changelog update should be a separate commit.
I have added a migration.lisp entry for all compatibility-breaking changes.
(If this changes something about the features showcased on Nyxt website) I have these changes described in the new/existing article at Nyxt website or will notify one of maintainters to do so.
[ ] Compilation and tests:
My changes generate no new warnings.
I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works. (If possible.)
I ran the tests locally ((asdf:test-system :nyxt) and (asdf:test-system :nyxt/gi-gtk)) and they pass.
Description
The scope issue pointed out in #3264 wasn't fully addressed. All offending undocumented symbols have been documented.
libraries/nasdf/compilation-tests.lispis a buggy linter. Besides #3264, it doesn't report the offense when deleting the docstring of a form define viadefine-command. Even if the implementation would be perfect, I am highly skeptical of the added value to the project. Developer discipline is what we need to aim for first and foremost. The discussion about the fate of this tool doesn't belong here regardless.Fixes #3264
I think it is beneficial to have a single invocation that triggers the complete test suite. I.e.,
(asdf:test-system :nyxt/gi-gtk)trigger the test suite ofnyxtandnyxt/gi-gtk, whereas (asdf:test-system :nyxt) behaves as before.Checklist:
Everything in this checklist is required for each PR. Please do not approve a PR that does not have all of these items.
:documentations written in the aforementioned style. (It's OK to skip the docstring for really trivial parts.)changelog.lispwith my changes if it's anything user-facing (new features, important bug fix, compatibility breakage).migration.lispentry for all compatibility-breaking changes.(asdf:test-system :nyxt)and(asdf:test-system :nyxt/gi-gtk)) and they pass.