-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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: allow --config with absolute path [gh-0] #589
Conversation
expect(configDirectory).toEqual(pathToPosix(path.dirname(path.join(process.cwd(), configFile)))) | ||
|
||
const { | ||
config, | ||
} = await loadChecklyConfig(path.join(__dirname, 'fixtures', 'configs'), ['good-config.js']) | ||
} = await loadChecklyConfig(path.join(__dirname, 'fixtures', 'configs'), [filename]) |
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.
Why don't we pass the output of splitConfigFilePath
to the loadChecklyConfig
call? If the goal of the test is to make sure that splitConfigFilePath
and loadChecklyConfig
work nicely together, then that would make more sense to me.
With the current setup, the calls to splitConfigFilePath
and loadChecklyConfig
are totally separate, so it's like having two different tests. I don't think that it checks that the two work together.
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.
Looks good 👍
I added two suggestions, but I think this is good to go as-is.
Should I approve it again? |
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.
LGTM
I hereby confirm that I followed the code guidelines found at engineering guidelines
Affected Components
Notes for the Reviewer
--config
flag--config
with absolute path.New Dependency Submission