Conversation
|
So the error is expected then? If so, we can keep the existing test, and just modify it to account for exit code and output from failure. |
carlocab
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for this, @n-thumann. We can do better than a version test here, now that we know that the failure is expected.
|
I wouldn't say that the error is expected. It seems like 20 days ago exchangeratesapi.io suddenly starts requiring an API key and the author of cash-cli hasn't handles that yet. I'm not sure if this will be fixed soon as the last commit on master in 17 months old :/ |
I see. In that case, we definitely shouldn't change the test. Otherwise we have no way of knowing whether this problem ever gets fixed or not. |
|
Looks like there are some issues matching against the output |
Co-authored-by: Carlo Cabrera <30379873+carlocab@users.noreply.github.com>
f0b516c to
d5c8019
Compare
carlocab
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My opinion hasn't really changed from what I said above: #75709 (comment)
That the test fails when you try it seems to be the correct result, as it appears that this software is broken right now.
|
@SMillerDev thoughts here? Do we want to change the test? |
|
I think it should be deprecated as unmaintained and the test adjusted with a comment that they are no longer fully accurate. |
|
Works for me. @n-thumann, do you mind making those changes here? |
|
Sure, give me a sec :) |
Fixes failing test in e.g. #75705.
The error is caused by the default API that cash-cli uses and now always requires an API key. Unfortunately, there's no other way for testing than using a dumb version check, but (according to the Formula Cookbook) this is better than nothing and definitely better than a failing test.
brew install --build-from-source <formula>, where<formula>is the name of the formula you're submitting?brew test <formula>, where<formula>is the name of the formula you're submitting?brew audit --strict <formula>(after doingbrew install <formula>)?