Add cosmos validate to check plugins #1675
Conversation
| @@ -36,5 +36,7 @@ task :build => [:require_version] do | |||
| if platform == 'mswin32' or platform == 'mingw32' | |||
| puts "Warning: Building gem on Windows will lose file permissions" | |||
| end | |||
| # Build the widgets in the src directory | |||
| system("yarn run build") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can see that we're already doing this via the docker-package-build script but that only happens in the cosmos-init Dockerfile. As an example for other plugins, I think this command should also be here.
| system = update_store(temp_dir) | ||
| deploy_microservices(gem_path, variables, system) | ||
| # Build a System for just this target | ||
| system = System.new([@name], temp_dir) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is where most of the validation takes place ... all the targets and their cmd/tlm
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1675 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 70.67% 78.37% +7.70%
==========================================
Files 27 207 +180
Lines 1272 16924 +15652
==========================================
+ Hits 899 13265 +12366
- Misses 373 3659 +3286 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
cosmos/bin/cosmos
Outdated
| plugin_hash = Cosmos::PluginModel.install_phase1(plugin_file_path, variables, scope: scope, validate_only: true) | ||
| Cosmos::PluginModel.install_phase2(plugin_hash['name'], plugin_hash['variables'], scope: scope, validate_only: true, | ||
| gem_file_path: plugin_file_path) | ||
| if ENV['COSMOS_NO_STORE'] == 'validate_plugin' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is unnecessary. ENV does not persist
| @@ -308,6 +328,9 @@ if not ARGV[0].nil? # argument(s) given | |||
| when 'rake' | |||
| puts `rake #{ARGV[1..-1].join(' ')}` | |||
|
|
|||
| when 'validate' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was thinking "dryrun" when I read this, but I think validate is ok too. Thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think validate is clearer plus that's what someone else used to describe this.
closes #1337