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

Test app task: Allow passing in user class #5956

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 2, 2024

Conversation

mamhoff
Copy link
Contributor

@mamhoff mamhoff commented Dec 1, 2024

Without this, every extension's test app always has Spree::LegacyUser configured. Mostly, that's fine, but for solidus_auth_devise, it'd be nicer if the generated spree.rb file would have Spree.user_class = "Spree::User" rather than Spree::LegacyUser.

See this spec failure as an example of what I mean :) solidusio/solidus_auth_devise@7478697#diff-8d002d054349f039bafc03785a785a1594ef6b4539298f59e84e95217a97abedR21

Checklist

Check out our PR guidelines for more details.

The following are mandatory for all PRs:

The following are not always needed:

  • 📖 I have updated the README to account for my changes.
  • 📑 I have documented new code with YARD.
  • 🛣️ I have opened a PR to update the guides.
  • ✅ I have added automated tests to cover my changes.
  • 📸 I have attached screenshots to demo visual changes.

@mamhoff mamhoff requested a review from a team as a code owner December 1, 2024 12:01
@github-actions github-actions bot added the changelog:solidus_core Changes to the solidus_core gem label Dec 1, 2024
Without this, every extension's test app always has `Spree::LegacyUser`
configured. Mostly, that's fine, but for solidus_auth_devise, it'd be
nicer if the generated spree.rb file would have `Spree.user_class =
"Spree::User"` rather than `Spree::LegacyUser`.
@tvdeyen tvdeyen force-pushed the allow-passing-in-user-class branch from 77d7ada to 520efc0 Compare December 2, 2024 10:39
Copy link
Member

@tvdeyen tvdeyen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense. Thank you

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 2, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 87.81%. Comparing base (b388c0a) to head (520efc0).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
core/lib/spree/testing_support/extension_rake.rb 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5956   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.81%   87.81%           
=======================================
  Files         476      476           
  Lines       11656    11656           
=======================================
  Hits        10236    10236           
  Misses       1420     1420           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Member

@kennyadsl kennyadsl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense, thanks Martin!

@kennyadsl kennyadsl merged commit 9013f71 into solidusio:main Dec 2, 2024
15 of 16 checks passed
@mamhoff
Copy link
Contributor Author

mamhoff commented Dec 2, 2024

I'd like to use this to get extensions to use the new loading mechanism from Flickwerk, and extensions are always tested against many Solidus versions. Can I have this backported to Solidus 4.0 - 4.4?

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 2, 2024

💔 Some backports could not be created

Status Branch Result
v4.0 An unhandled error occurred. Please see the logs for details
v4.1
v4.2 An unhandled error occurred. Please see the logs for details
v4.3
v4.4

Manual backport

To create the backport manually run:

backport --pr 5956

Questions ?

Please refer to the Backport tool documentation and see the Github Action logs for details

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 2, 2024

💔 Some backports could not be created

Status Branch Result
v4.0
v4.1 An unhandled error occurred. Please see the logs for details
v4.2
v4.3
v4.4

Manual backport

To create the backport manually run:

backport --pr 5956

Questions ?

Please refer to the Backport tool documentation and see the Github Action logs for details

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 2, 2024

💚 All backports created successfully

Status Branch Result
v4.0
v4.1
v4.2
v4.3
v4.4

Questions ?

Please refer to the Backport tool documentation and see the Github Action logs for details

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 2, 2024

💚 All backports created successfully

Status Branch Result
v4.0
v4.1
v4.2
v4.3
v4.4

Questions ?

Please refer to the Backport tool documentation and see the Github Action logs for details

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 2, 2024

💚 All backports created successfully

Status Branch Result
v4.0
v4.1
v4.2
v4.3
v4.4

Questions ?

Please refer to the Backport tool documentation and see the Github Action logs for details

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport-v4.0 Backport this pull-request to v4.0 backport-v4.1 Backport this pull-request to v4.1 backport-v4.2 Backport this pull-request to v4.2 backport-v4.3 Backport this pull-request to v4.3 backport-v4.4 Backport this pull-request to v4.4 changelog:solidus_core Changes to the solidus_core gem
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants