Skip to content

Conversation

@botanicus
Copy link
Contributor

#323

Note: #322 should be merged in first.

@0crat
Copy link
Collaborator

0crat commented Jul 3, 2018

Job #331 is now in scope, role is REV

@0crat 0crat added the scope label Jul 3, 2018
@0crat
Copy link
Collaborator

0crat commented Jul 3, 2018

This pull request #331 is assigned to @ledestin/z, here is why; the budget is 15 minutes, see §4; please, read §27 and when you decide to accept the changes, inform @yegor256/z (the architect) right in this ticket; if you decide that this PR should not be accepted ever, also inform the architect; this blog post will help you understand what is expected from a code reviewer; there will be a monetary reward for this job

@yegor256
Copy link
Collaborator

yegor256 commented Jul 3, 2018

@botanicus again no tests?

@botanicus
Copy link
Contributor Author

@yegor256 tests are in #322. (Not starting with them complicated the workflow a bit here, but they do exist and are done, just not here.)

@yegor256
Copy link
Collaborator

yegor256 commented Jul 3, 2018

@botanicus each pull request must have a combination of "new tests + new code." Without tests a PR won't be merged. We simply can't be sure that the code you contribute works.

@botanicus
Copy link
Contributor Author

@yegor256 that makes sense, however here we already split the work in puzzle 1 test and puzzle 2 this.

Makes sense? If not, what’s your suggestion?

@yegor256
Copy link
Collaborator

yegor256 commented Jul 4, 2018

@botanicus that was a mistake. Let's not make it worse. Just follow the rule: every change starts with a test. Doesn't matter where.

@botanicus
Copy link
Contributor Author

@yegor256 let’s do that.

In order for me to do some progress there though, please reply to my comments in #330

Additionally: is what’s in the PR satisfactory to meet the requirements for having tests in this issue? And if not now, will it meet them once reworked in the desired way, or is there a need to do something in this PR directly?

@yegor256
Copy link
Collaborator

yegor256 commented Jul 5, 2018

@botanicus the rule is simple: I have to be sure that the code you submit works. It there are no tests -- I don't trust your code.

@botanicus
Copy link
Contributor Author

@yegor256 what do you mean? Are you saying that if #330 is merged in first, this works?

@yegor256
Copy link
Collaborator

yegor256 commented Jul 6, 2018

@botanicus not at all. That ticket will be merged by itself. Then, we will get back to this ticket and the question will still be the same: what is broken now? Every time you submit a pull request you are fixing something that is broken. If it's broken, you should prove that it's broken -- with a test. If you can't prove it's broken -- what's the point of the pull request? You are not fixing anything, right? Thus, every change comes to the master branch with a test that proves that something was broken and now it's fixed.

@codecov-io
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #331 into master will decrease coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #331 +/- ## ========================================= - Coverage 33.76% 33.7% -0.06%  ========================================= Files 50 49 -1 Lines 2343 2332 -11 ========================================= - Hits 791 786 -5  + Misses 1552 1546 -6
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
lib/zold/commands/node.rb 21.26% <0%> (-0.45%) ⬇️
lib/zold/hungry_wallets.rb
lib/zold/commands/pay.rb 22.64% <0%> (+0.6%) ⬆️
lib/zold/tax.rb 51.42% <0%> (+1.42%) ⬆️

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 d3ee24d...60a9ef7. Read the comment docs.

@0crat
Copy link
Collaborator

0crat commented Jul 8, 2018

@ledestin/z this job was assigned to you 5days ago. It will be taken away from you soon, unless you close it, see §8. Read this and this, please.

command = mine[0]
raise "A command is required, try 'zold alias --help'" unless command
case command
when 'set' then set(mine[1], mine[2])
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@botanicus please don't make us guess what mine[1] is, extract variables.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ledestin it's how it's been used in other commands as well, for instance https://github.com/zold-io/zold/blob/master/lib/zold/commands/remote.rb#L120

If you think this is wrong, then it should be changed everywhere, not just here, in which case I think bug report is where it belongs.

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with it since they are named in both method signature and in the help just above it.

I'm not sure what @yegor256 thinks, I've seen something from him about avoiding unnecessary variables, but I cannot tell if this is one of the cases or not.

Anyhow ... since it's not specific to this code, I'd suggest a bug report. Makes sense?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@botanicus sure!

# The set command expects 'wallet' which is the wallet id
# and 'alias' (here called 'name' as alias is a Ruby keyword).
# It writes this info into the alias file as described in #279.
def set(_wallet, _name)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@botanicus do tests exist for these?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes #330

@ledestin
Copy link
Contributor

ledestin commented Jul 9, 2018

@botanicus please see my comments

@botanicus
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ledestin please see.

@ledestin
Copy link
Contributor

@yegor256 seems fine to me. tests exist in #330.

@yegor256
Copy link
Collaborator

@botanicus again no tests? We can't merge anything without tests first.

@botanicus
Copy link
Contributor Author

@yegor256 tests exist in #330. @ledestin agrees with me on that ^ as well. I don't see what could I possible do otherwise.

@yegor256
Copy link
Collaborator

@botanicus let's wait for them to be merged and see what happens? At the moment we can't merge this.

@yegor256
Copy link
Collaborator

@botanicus will you continue here?

case command
when 'set' then set(mine[1], mine[2])
when 'remove' then remove(mine[1])
when 'show' then show(mine[1])
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

else raise “Unknown command: ‘#{command}’” end 
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

6 participants