-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 171
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
chore: replace library tinydir with std::filesystem #1516
chore: replace library tinydir with std::filesystem #1516
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Federico Aponte <[email protected]>
Thanks for this great cleanup, love dropping deps!!
I think we need to write unit tests for |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This LGTM; the code is pretty small and the logic very simple, i think it's good to go.
/approve
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: d18399c229e6b1739835f2c118970753128c7380
|
/milestone 0.14.0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: FedeDP, federico-sysdig, jasondellaluce The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
Any specific area of the project related to this PR?
/area build
Does this PR require a change in the driver versions?
no
What this PR does / why we need it:
Replaces the usage of library
tinydir
, used only once to scan a directory of Lua source files, withstd::filesystem
from the standard C++ library. The dependency fromtinydir
is also removed from the project.Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
I'd like to know how I can get evidence that the modified function is behaving the same or, if not possible, if someone can provide some support for adding a test for it.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: