-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
Refresh #17
Refresh #17
Conversation
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 except for that one comment. Thanks!
Co-Authored-By: Bret Comnes <[email protected]>
Any idea what the failing test is? |
See above:
|
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 perfect except for that failing test. I don't have enough recent context to have a good answer off hand.
What would be the correct fix in your opinion? |
@bcomnes, to be clear, the test breakage is not a result of this PR. When |
I'm not sure off hand either. Would need to dig in. Put it on my todo, but it might be a while before I have time to look. We can land as soon as we're green. |
@bcomnes can we land and publish now, since master is already red? |
We can get this to land but let's try to fix first. If you need immediate results use the |
I just ran a bisect and found the first bad commit in: When it went from abstract blob store 2 - 3. |
Pinning semver, it appears the tests begin to fail as soon as abstract blob store |
Pinning "abstract-blob-store": "~3.2.0" fixes tests. |
Upstream introduced breaking changes in a semver minor patch: max-mapper/abstract-blob-store#39 Let's get the fix in there and then land when green. |
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
@bcomnes, pinning the test suite back at an old version seems wrong to me. If content-addressable-blob-store is meant to be an abstract-blob-store, it ought to pass the latest test suite. |
It’s not pinned. I fixed upstream. If abs wants to add that error feature it needs to go in as a major. I’m not convinced it’s a good idea though. |
Ah, I see. You pinned here for testing, but you published a new patch release of abstract-blob-store. I was relying on |
It should probably go back in then, but as a major release. |
Concrete abstract stores have always been free to provide types errors or error identifiers as well. Having a standard not found might be worth it though, especially since it was added for about a year before anyone noted the breaking nature of it. |
I strongly agree that `.notFound` is a good idea. The store isn’t really abstract if you have to check for multiple implementation-specific error properties like `error.code === ‘ENOENT’`.
|
Ok well do a 4.0 abs then patch here |
Opened up a pr to addressed that max-mapper/abstract-blob-store#41 |
@mafintosh, this PR:
There is an abstract-blob-store test failure: When a file isn't found,
.notFound
isn't set on theENOENT
error. I couldn't think of a good way to wrap emission of that error offhand. Perhaps you can.