-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 80
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
Fix slime generator #156
Fix slime generator #156
Conversation
Thanks for this. I'm not a Let me look this over and see if there is a way we can DRY up some of the naming and duplication of the non-template specific files and code. I'll try to get to this sometime in the next few days. |
Actually, looking at the phoenix-slime docs, it appears their generators output files with the |
OK, I've studied the |
It's exactly as you said. We think there is a bug or at least some enhancement to be done on the The issue is actually in this line where the name should also have its suffix replaced. But this cascades into a lot more changes. Anyway, we will fix the other comments regarding backward compatibility and DRYness so we can get this PR merged if it's alright with you. |
So I think that line is actually fine. The tuple the slime generator returns there is intended to mimic what the native
For example:
So the slime task first asks the native phx tasks for the list of files it needs to process:
Which returns an array of the tuples listed above. The slime generator then just changes the output path file extension to be The reason the slime package uses
Anyways, all that being said, I understand why, when Torch copies it's slime files over, they need to have the Thanks for the response and help on this though. I'd love to get some of those other changes finished, and then we can get this PR merged and ship a new release out. |
@juanvico Any movement on this? Do you want/need me to jump in and help get this PR merged or are you both still working on the suggested changes? |
@juanvico Just wanted to ping you one more time on this before we jumped in and tried to finish up this work ourselves. |
@cpjolicoeur sorry for the late reply, it's been a busy couple of weeks. Do you have any progress towards this? I can get the requested changes by Tomorrow or Wednesday if you don't. |
@brunvez I haven't started working on this yet, no. I was waiting to hear back from you, otherwise I was going to dive into it sometime this week. |
Cool, then if you don't mind I'll make the suggested changes and re-request your review |
393eded
to
48b1231
Compare
@cpjolicoeur updated. I added a Please let me know of any feedback you have. I wanted to add some tests but couldn't find any mirroring the behavior on |
Thanks for the help @brunvez! |
Thanks @brunvez I'll check this out today or tomorrow and look to get it in and released. |
@brunvez and @juanvico Thanks for the work on this. Version 3.3.0 was released today with these changes. |
Fixes #157