-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32
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
feat(nextcloud): test validity of the generated clients #1014
Conversation
da9499b
to
be66a5a
Compare
depends on #1024 |
…uration Signed-off-by: Nikolas Rimikis <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Nikolas Rimikis <[email protected]>
be66a5a
to
15ed36e
Compare
This is based on the work we did in #1035 |
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 looks mostly good, but I still don't like that it gets so complex.
I have an idea how we can do this better:
Move the ensure_validity_test.dart files into a source_verification_test/ dir inside the packages.
Then adjust the melos commands to run with concurrency 1 for packages with that dir and point the test command only to that dir.
Of course this makes it a bit more work to run those tests locally for a single package because you now need to run fvm dart test source_verification_test/
, but I would argue that you rarely want to run those tests locally if not never.
They are really just for the CI to ensure everything committed is up-to-date.
Does this make sense? Maybe I'm still missing something, but in my head this is much better than the tricks with the tags and checking for the specific test file name.
The other option that gets completely rid of these problems and the build_verify way is to just setup a workflow that runs the generate scripts and checks for diffs with git diff. That would be a more classic approach which might be better because we just avoid this whole mess. |
Feel free to implement this. I'm not a script wizard as you are :) Maybe we can just skip the tag entirely in packages that don't use it but I'm not sure this would work. |
Ok I'll do that and open a new PR |
implements: #555