Add output channel into internal commands #798
Conversation
|
|
||
| this.registerCommand(AvailableCommands.SHOW_OUTPUT_CHANNEL, () => | ||
| outputChannel.show() | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[F] This is a placeholder. The plan is to actually move registerInstrumentedCommand into this class and then have it show a toast error which gives the option to reveal the output channel instead of the throwing another error.
| @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ | |||
| import { spy, stub } from 'sinon' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[F] These are super gross that is why I held off implementing them, if you get a problem crop up in these complicated utils then you can get into all sorts of trouble trying to debug.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While the utils' source is gross, I think it'll be better to have these reusable functions that have all the gross mock logic in one place over spreading everything out and re-creating the mocks slightly differently each time. Thanks for taking this on!
| @@ -22,20 +23,29 @@ suite('Repository Test Suite', () => { | |||
| disposable.dispose() | |||
| }) | |||
|
|
|||
| const buildRepository = () => { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[F] This is only required in this file, hence I didn't pull it into a util.
| @@ -23,6 +23,10 @@ export class OutputChannel { | |||
| }) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| public show() { | |||
| return this.outputChannel.show(true) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[F] This is why we are making this change.
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit 85ef140 and detected 0 issues on this pull request. The test coverage on the diff in this pull request is 95.0% (85% is the threshold). This pull request will bring the total coverage in the repository to 96.0% (0.0% change). View more on Code Climate. |
This PR gets a lot of the grunt work out of the way to address #795 and specifically this comment.
I took the opportunity to pull out some heavy lifting builder util. LMK what you think.