-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 139
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
Overall reorganization #265
Conversation
Don't have time to dig in much, but from a quick peek I wouldn't expect coloring for the replacements to work right without trying tty detection, and it looks like the code doesn't limit the number of replacements in general now when passing the |
Rather bizarre to see the test hard-code color codes into asserts. tty detection and automatic coloring is another PR I wanted to throw in, after this one gets through (or not, both fine). Limiting number of replacements works by My changes does introduce a |
The part that I don't think will work is handling coloring the replacements when the output is a tty or when the user passes Re: no device My guess is that it happens when reading from Also thanks for taking up the initiative to fix things up. @dev-ardi and I were conveniently talking about the overall architecture yesterday |
This one can be solved with
Seems so. On it.
Despite two weeks after my "ambitious" words ;) I'm the one pushing for 1.0 after all. |
Any help is very much so appreciated! I'm hoping to have the beta published today after getting that |
Apart from "No device" is caused by For the |
Hi! It looks like I caused a lot of conflicts with #266 and #267 😈 Fortunately
100% agree. I think it expresses how spotty our support for determining when color should be used really is. I've gone ahead and opened #268 as a bit of a wishlist for what I'd like to see supported Also (I doubt this is a surprise at this point), but I won't be getting around to reviewing this before v1.0 is released as a heads up. That should mean less than a week at this point 🤞 |
Just a rebase away.
Great! Saw the changes (then removed
Nice, I'll put some known things there.
Sure, it's mostly an internal cleanup. Do you think |
I was planning on leaving that till v1.1, but if you want to see it in the next release then I should have enough time to look over all of it and try to get it merged |
|
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.
Overall things look great barring a couple of small things
As for the CI I would just change the expected outputs to get things passing if the only issue is that it's expecting ANSI color codes. I don't want to merge things with CI failing, but we can kick the can on resolving coloring issues for #268
What are the small things? I'll try to fix them. Regarding color codes, I intend to nudge them there too. Maybe disable related tests first. |
Sorry I wasn't really clear. The small things are all the individual comments 😅 |
Oh sorry, I'm on my phone so didn't see these. |
More than that, I'm also kinda confused by |
I'm inclined to agree. Feel free to change that as you see fit |
Failures on Windows only appear in |
My guess is on some platform specific quirks with filesystem/mmap stuff in I can setup a windows dev env and work on trying to debug this tomorrow. I'd also like to have some kind of logging added which can help with debugging these issues in the future |
|
…privileged on Windows
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.
Overall things are looking pretty good! Just a few more small things to get through
I believe you can also re-request a review in the future by hitting the refresh icon next to my name under the reviewers section in the top-right if you're ready for me to take a look at things again
@nc7s Sorry for the delay on the re-review. I think there are still two active comments that haven't been addressed. Other than that all of the changes look good to me! |
Yeah I replied ;) |
I think either you forgot to hit something to send the replies, or I'm just missing something because I'm only seeing my initial comment on both the open ones 😅 |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Ah no. The 'Pending' indicates that you need to submit the review or something like that for everyone else to see. It depends on which tab of the PR you're using, but that's how the code section is I believe |
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.
Submitting the review comments. (This is really counterintuitive from my PoV, and from quite a few of others. I don't know why GitHub insists on this.)
Yeah I totally get that. For just replying to a message you'll want the send single message button. If you want to do a coordinated set of replies you want a full review (yes it's incredibly non-obvious) |
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.
Everything looks great! Thanks for sticking through the unexpectedly long review :)
Whelp spoke a bit too soon. It looks like the path is different on apple. I'm fine with those tests being switched to just Linux if you are too. I was a little worried that the error message would differ on other unix platforms, but can't test locally |
Another option would be to canonicalize the test home path before normalizing I think |
This is the refactor I talked about in #238. Sources are unified into a
Vec
ofMmap
s, abstracting away the need forreplace_{file,preview}
.