Thank you ๐
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/15607790
Just wanted to share some (exciting) news about my Common Lisp project, euler-cl. I finally got the time to sit down and integrate it with Codecov! This means a couple of cool things:
- ๐ Test Coverage Tracking: I can now see how well my code is tested over time, giving valuable insights into code quality.
- ๐ Codecov Badge: euler-cl now sports a snazzy Codecov badge to show off!
- ๐ฆ Reusable Setup: The code and setup process should be simple enough to be used as a reference to integrate Codecov (and potentially other services) into your own Common Lisp projects!
If you're interested this commit is almost all you need: https://github.com/bahmanm/euler-cl/commit/855b014
Let me know in the comments if you have any questions or want to chat about integrating Codecov into your own projects!
Just wanted to share some (exciting) news about my Common Lisp project, euler-cl. I finally got the time to sit down and integrate it with Codecov! This means a couple of cool things:
- ๐ Test Coverage Tracking: I can now see how well my code is tested over time, giving valuable insights into code quality.
- ๐ Codecov Badge: euler-cl now sports a snazzy Codecov badge to show off!
- ๐ฆ Reusable Setup: The code and setup process should be simple enough to be used as a reference to integrate Codecov (and potentially other services) into your own Common Lisp projects!
If you're interested this commit is almost all you need: https://github.com/bahmanm/euler-cl/commit/855b014
Let me know in the comments if you have any questions or want to chat about integrating Codecov into your own projects!
Thank you ๐
Thank you ๐
Good question!
IMO a good way to help a FOSS maintainer is to actually use the software (esp pre-release) and report bugs instead of working around them. Besides helping the project quality, I'd find it very heart-warming to receive feedback from users; it means people out there are actually not only using the software but care enough for it to take their time, report bugs and test patches.
"Announcment"
It used to be quite common on mailing lists to categorise/tag threads by using subject prefixes such as "ANN", "HELP", "BUG" and "RESOLVED".
It's just an old habit but I feel my messages/posts lack some clarity if I don't do it ๐
I usually capture all my development-time "automation" in Make and Ansible files. I also use makefiles to provide a consisent set of commands for the CI/CD pipelines to work w/ in case different projects use different build tools. That way CI/CD only needs to know about make build, make test, make package, ... instead of Gradle/Maven/... specific commands.
Most of the times, the makefiles are quite simple and don't need much comments. However, there are times that's not the case and hence the need to write a line of comment on particular targets and variables.
Can you provide what you mean by check the environment, and why youโd need to do that before anything else?
One recent example is a makefile (in a subproject), w/ a dozen of targets to provision machines and run Ansible playbooks. Almost all the targets need at least a few variables to be set. Additionally, I needed any fresh invocation to clean the "build" directory before starting the work.
At first, I tried capturing those variables w/ a bunch of ifeqs, shells and defines. However, I wasn't satisfied w/ the results for a couple of reasons:
- Subjectively speaking, it didn't turn out as nice and easy-to-read as I wanted it to.
- I had to replicate my (admittedly simple)
cleantarget as a shell command at the top of the file.
Then I tried capturing that in a target using bmakelib.error-if-blank and bmakelib.default-if-blank as below.
##############
.PHONY : ensure-variables
ensure-variables : bmakelib.error-if-blank( VAR1 VAR2 )
ensure-variables : bmakelib.default-if-blank( VAR3,foo )
##############
.PHONY : ansible.run-playbook1
ansible.run-playbook1 : ensure-variables cleanup-residue | $(ansible.venv)
ansible.run-playbook1 :
...
##############
.PHONY : ansible.run-playbook2
ansible.run-playbook2 : ensure-variables cleanup-residue | $(ansible.venv)
ansible.run-playbook2 :
...
##############
But this was not DRY as I had to repeat myself.
That's why I thought there may be a better way of doing this which led me to the manual and then the method I describe in the post.
running specific targets or rules unconditionally can lead to trouble later as your Makefile grows up
That is true! My concern is that when the number of targets which don't need that initialisation grows I may have to rethink my approach.
I'll keep this thread posted of how this pans out as the makefile scales.
Even though Iโve been writing GNU Makefiles for decades, I still am learning new stuff constantly, so if someone has better, different ways, Iโm certainly up for studying them.
Love the attitude! I'm on the same boat. I could have just kept doing what I already knew but I thought a bit of manual reading is going to be well worth it.
That's a great starting point - and a good read anyways!
Thanks ๐
Agree w/ you re trust.
Thanks. At least I've got a few clues to look for when auditing such code.
I'm not an 1.e4 or Sicilian player but this smells like wild tactical variations early in the game.
view more: next โบ
Thanks for the pointer! Very interesting. I actually may end up doing a prototype and see how far I can get.