Closed johlju closed 7 years ago
@johlju, Thanks for having already signed the Contribution License Agreement. Your agreement was validated by Microsoft. We will now review your pull request. Thanks, Microsoft Pull Request Bot
:exclamation: No coverage uploaded for pull request base (
dev@71849b1
). Click here to learn what that means. The diff coverage isn/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #65 +/- ##
===================================
Coverage ? 57%
===================================
Files ? 6
Lines ? 293
Branches ? 0
===================================
Hits ? 168
Misses ? 125
Partials ? 0
@bgelens Would you mind reviewing this one when you got a chance. 😄
Done. Sorry for the delay! Not had a lot of time this weekend :)
Reviewed 12 of 12 files at r1. Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 3 unresolved discussions, some commit checks failed.
.gitignore, line 3 at r1 (raw file):
DSCResource.Tests .vs .vscode
Won't this make adding the vscode style rules difficult in the future?
appveyor.yml, line 7 at r1 (raw file):
install: - git clone https://github.com/PowerShell/DscResource.Tests
This is not stated on your PR description is it? Is this a new appveyor.yml default (i'm unfamiliar with it so sorry to ask)
CHANGELOG.md, line 51 at r1 (raw file):
- Added example - 1-WaitForFailoverClusterToBePresent.ps1 - Added link to example from README.md
Not sure if it's worth mentioning, but the changes to appveyor.yml are not in here
Comments from Reviewable
No worries :) I get this comments fixed.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 3 unresolved discussions, some commit checks failed.
.gitignore, line 3 at r1 (raw file):
Won't this make adding the vscode style rules difficult in the future?
Not difficult. To change, you have to do the following
The downside not to have this in the .gitignore file is that we would get a lot of .vscode files in the PR's that we didn't want.
appveyor.yml, line 7 at r1 (raw file):
This is not stated on your PR description is it? Is this a new appveyor.yml default (i'm unfamiliar with it so sorry to ask)
Fixing the PR description.
Yes, PSDscResources uses this, so this is the new default. All repos should change to this, or to the "Harness" model that for example SharePointDsc is using which also allows "auto" Wiki documentation. But then the folder structure need to change as well. "Harness" is not the default. Read more about it here: https://github.com/PowerShell/DscResource.Tests#example-usage-of-dscresourcetests-in-appveyoryml And Daniel and Brian has best knowledge of the "Harness" model.
CHANGELOG.md, line 51 at r1 (raw file):
Not sure if it's worth mentioning, but the changes to appveyor.yml are not in here
Yes, absolutely. Fixing that :smile:
Comments from Reviewable
Review status: 10 of 11 files reviewed at latest revision, 3 unresolved discussions.
.gitignore, line 3 at r1 (raw file):
Not difficult. To change, you have to do the following 1. Change for example .vscode\settings.json 1. Remove .vscode from .gitignore 1. Commit 1. Add back .vscode to .gitignore. 1. Commit 1. Push The downside not to have this in the .gitignore file is that we would get a lot of .vscode files in the PR's that we didn't want.
Done. Let me know if you want me to exclude it.
appveyor.yml, line 7 at r1 (raw file):
Fixing the PR description. Yes, PSDscResources uses this, so this is the new default. All repos should change to this, or to the "Harness" model that for example SharePointDsc is using which also allows "auto" Wiki documentation. But then the folder structure need to change as well. "Harness" is not the default. Read more about it here: https://github.com/PowerShell/DscResource.Tests#example-usage-of-dscresourcetests-in-appveyoryml And Daniel and Brian has best knowledge of the "Harness" model.
Done.
CHANGELOG.md, line 51 at r1 (raw file):
Yes, absolutely. Fixing that :smile:
Done.
Comments from Reviewable
Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2. Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion, some commit checks failed.
.gitignore, line 3 at r1 (raw file):
Done. Let me know if you want me to exclude it.
OK No I'm fine with the inclusion. Just wanted to check.
Comments from Reviewable
@bgelens btw, don't be sorry for asking. Happy to answer any questions. 😄
Just being polite :wink:
Okay good 😉
Merging this one.
Pull Request (PR) description
This Pull Request (PR) fixes the following issues: Fixes #41 Fixes #42
Task list:
This change is