nrepl / piggieback

nREPL support for ClojureScript REPLs

480 stars 48 forks source link

Use nrepl pretty printing support #108

Closed ak-coram closed 4 years ago

ak-coram commented 5 years ago

Hi,

I'm trying to fix CIDER issue #2667 and believe it could be resolved by also relying on the pretty-printing support of the newer nREPL versions in piggieback. These changes work for me, so please let me know if there are issues with this approach. Thanks!

ak-coram commented 4 years ago

Thank you @bbatsov and @shen-tian for your help! It really seems we're getting close to resolving this after all this time.

it'd be nice to document the pretty-printing and its limitations in the README.

Yes, I agree this PR is a bit lacking in terms of documentation. Would you prefer to deal with this in the same PR or should I open a new one?

shen-tian@3750bf4 <- this commit made all the tests go green in my fork.

Thanks, I've merged it. The implicit dependency on wrap-print is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the sporadic test failures.

codecov-io commented 4 years ago

Codecov Report

Merging #108 into master will not change coverage. The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #108   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.33%   83.33%           
=======================================
  Files           1        1           
  Lines          12       12           
  Branches        1        1           
=======================================
  Hits           10       10           
  Misses          1        1           
  Partials        1        1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/cider/piggieback.clj	`83.33% <100.00%> (ø)`

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update a5d8b25...a574d42. Read the comment docs.

bbatsov commented 4 years ago

Yes, I agree this PR is a bit lacking in terms of documentation.

Let's add it to this PR.

bbatsov commented 4 years ago

You'll also have to rebase on top of the latest master.

ak-coram commented 4 years ago

Rebased on top of the latest master.

bbatsov commented 4 years ago

We only need some coverage of the print functionality in the README and the changelog and we're good to go.

ak-coram commented 4 years ago

We only need some coverage of the print functionality in the README and the changelog and we're good to go.

Sounds great, I'll try to find time on the weekend to do a write-up for the README.

ak-coram commented 4 years ago

@bbatsov: I've tried to summarize the parts of this discussion which are relevant to the current solution. Please let me know what you think. Thanks!

bbatsov commented 4 years ago

Looks good. I'll tweak the docs a bit before cutting a release, but overall you've done great!

I'm happy that we finally managed to wrap this up!