Closed seraku24 closed 7 years ago
@seraku24 You're welcome, feel free to contribute back to byebug
any improvements you think byebug
could benefit from! :wink:
@denofevil, let me know if this works for you. The test code does takes a slightly different path than the real code, but this is the cleanest approach I found that does not overly complicate things.
@seraku24, I've checked previous version of the code in ruby-debug-base and it seems that position and expression checks were separated, that probably will make tests more clean but also more unit-like. In general LGTM, I can merge this one.
@seraku24 what do you think, do you want to check previous implementation or we're merging this one?
It should also fix #11
@denofevil, I did not realize you had been waiting on me. I am very sorry about that.
I just reviewed the files you linked. At this point, I do not believe the differences from what we have here should matter in the grand scheme of things.
@seraku24 no problems, let me merge this then and update the gem
Pushed debase 0.2.2.beta10 to rubygems.org.
This should allow
debase
to be able to perform conditional breakpoint evaluation on its own. Fixes #36.I have done basic acceptance testing against VS Code* and PuTTY connecting as IDEs. @denofevil, I would be grateful if you could test these changes against RubyMine to confirm that I have not inadvertently broken compatibility.
(*
vscode-ruby
still has some pending work for enabling conditional breakpoints, so my testing is against a private build at the moment.)And, thanks to @deivid-rodriguez and the
byebug
project, which proved to be a helpful resource.(: