Skip to content
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

[FEATURE] Adapt the version checker to sharg. #38

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 5, 2022

Conversation

smehringer
Copy link
Member

@smehringer smehringer commented Dec 17, 2021

Part of #31

Prior to this PR the following has been done:

This PR does the following (by commit):

  1. Changes most occurences of "seqan" to sharg
    Exceptions (Open TODO): Notifications still link to seqan3 wiki page
  2. Changes the URL of the server call to SeqAn-Sharg to get correct cookies
  3. Adds small print out in test that comes in handy when manually inspecting the version tests.
  4. Tiny 💅 splitting two tests

@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Dec 17, 2021

This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more).
To see the status of your deployment, click below or on the icon next to each commit.

🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/seqan/sharg-parser/EqjNxhw3p2tD3dsa3K8pH2bdDB2o
✅ Preview: https://sharg-parser-git-fork-smehringer-versioncheck-seqan.vercel.app

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 17, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #38 (3fd85dd) into master (618e305) will decrease coverage by 0.20%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #38      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.63%   95.43%   -0.21%     
==========================================
  Files          12       13       +1     
  Lines         894      920      +26     
==========================================
+ Hits          855      878      +23     
- Misses         39       42       +3     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
include/sharg/argument_parser.hpp 97.45% <ø> (ø)
include/sharg/detail/format_base.hpp 93.16% <ø> (+3.07%) ⬆️
include/sharg/detail/version_check.hpp 92.04% <100.00%> (-0.51%) ⬇️
include/sharg/detail/format_help.hpp 88.78% <0.00%> (-5.79%) ⬇️
include/sharg/detail/type_name_as_string.hpp 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
include/sharg/detail/format_parse.hpp 97.43% <0.00%> (+0.72%) ⬆️

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 618e305...3fd85dd. Read the comment docs.

@smehringer smehringer requested review from a team and SGSSGene and removed request for a team December 17, 2021 08:42
@smehringer smehringer mentioned this pull request Dec 17, 2021
8 tasks
Copy link
Contributor

@SGSSGene SGSSGene left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This also looks good to me 👍


TEST_F(version_check, option_off_with_help_page)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

good split! much nicer!

include/sharg/detail/version_check.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
include/sharg/argument_parser.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
include/sharg/detail/version_check.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
include/sharg/detail/version_check.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 217 to 219
// This is not an actual check s.t. the test does not fail because there is something wrong with
// the server in Tuebingen. But upon manual execution of the test this can give valuable insight
// on whats happening.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you rephrase that?
I don't understand it.

Do you mean that this test succeeds even if the server is down?
manual execution as opposed to what?
And what kind of insight you may get?
It seems more like debug output, not like a log of what was happening.

Co-authored-by: Enrico Seiler <eseiler@users.noreply.github.com>
@smehringer
Copy link
Member Author

https seems to work. server calls succeed and the cookies are written as expected

@eseiler eseiler merged commit 0c5f832 into seqan:master Jan 5, 2022
@smehringer smehringer deleted the version_check branch January 19, 2022 08:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants