feat: scaffold a new app without a default module #1214
Conversation
|
wdyt about adopting a convention |
Mmh I actually don't know, |
|
Convention used by Rails, I thought this is something we can use ourselves.
|
|
But yeah, I agree, let's stick to |
|
Hold on a sec, before merging. Let's try modifying the changelog in the same PR with the code changes. |
We can still see if we want to switch to this convention in the future. There are other flags to rename as well (no-message) My concern was if this naming would be confusing to users but if this is used for other technologies, this is fine |
|
Yes, let's merge this one after releasing v0.16.1. |
…t/starport into feat/no-default-module
integration/cmd_app_test.go
Outdated
|
|
||
| path := filepath.Join(root, appName) | ||
|
|
||
| _, statErr := os.Stat(filepath.Join(path, "config.yml")) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does it make sense to move this check to EnsureAppIsSteady?
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func TestGenerateAnAppWithWasmAndVerify(t *testing.T) { | ||
| func TestGenerateAnAppWithNoDefaultModule(t *testing.T) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should check presence of the custom module dir at $path/x/blog, what do you think?
…t/starport into feat/no-default-module
The flag
--no-default-modulefor the commandappscaffold the app without a module under/x