[poc] tests/plugins: test package options #2121
Conversation
khaneliman
force-pushed
the
pkgtest
branch
2 times, most recently
from
59e1a02 to
97b5737
Compare
khaneliman
changed the title
khaneliman
changed the title
khaneliman
force-pushed
the
pkgtest
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7756618 to
23a9196
Compare
| { | ||
| plugins.bufferline.enable = true; | ||
|
|
||
| assertions = [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would it make more sense to test the package existence in our existing empty test cases?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's nice to keep the "empty" case simple.
Maybe we should consider adding test.runNvim = false to these assertion-based tests though, since we don't actually need to run neovim if all we care about is the assertion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good idea, don't need to waste processing time that way if it's just evaluation time testing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes me think we could do with a test.build toggle to completely disable building finalPackage, although we'd probably still want to ensure it is evaluated somehow (just not built)
| assertion = | ||
| config.extraPlugins != [ ] | ||
| && lib.any ( | ||
| x: lib.trace "${x.pname or ""}" x.pname or null == "bufferline.nvim" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking on noogle, there's also lib.getName, although I think that could fail when encountering submodule-type plugin definitions...
Just a little POC from a discussion about testing options functionality working, as expected for when we add or don't add packages.