-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12k
fix(): fixed paths internal in files #270
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
Conversation
return { | ||
__name__: function(options) { | ||
return options.locals.name; | ||
return _this.dynamicPath.name; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Try out arrow functions, it will simplify your code greatly. And they've been in Node for a while now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I keep forgetting that... I use them a lot when doing TypeScript so when I'm doing JavaScript I think I'm always restricted to ES5 syntax. Good catch, new PR pushed!
b0077c6
to
8fe07c6
Compare
Could you add a few tests in Also I see some the new blueprints for services, but not the supporting file changes (like |
8fe07c6
to
098f03d
Compare
@filipesilva instead of adding tests to the e2e workflow suite, I added a new acceptance test to handle the testing of generating components |
I haven't reviewed every single line, but at a high level this looks good to me |
098f03d
to
be76283
Compare
@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@ | |||
'use strict'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A minor thing, but shouldn't the file be named generate-component.spec.js
? We overall go for dash separated file names, and reserve the dots to separate functionality groups.
@Brocco tests look good, and now we have appveyor so we can tests on windows as well. What about the changes to services though, what are they for? Do they also support relative path names? I don't quite understand why these files are also in the PR. |
133c98f
to
fe86edb
Compare
@filipesilva I want to use this a test to see how the path structuring feels after some usage before fully integrating into all other generations. Also, awaiting on a more stabilized best practices project structure. |
} else if (cwd.indexOf(rootPath) >= 0) { | ||
outputPath = path.join(cwd, entityName); | ||
} else if (cwd.indexOf(path.join(this.project.root, 'src')) >= 0 | ||
&& entityName.indexOf('app') === 0) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
left aligned inside the (
of the if.
The paths/url references inside files were not changed to allow for dynamic paths Added the ability to utlize dynamic paths from within the project structure
fe86edb
to
65dc91b
Compare
LGTM. |
This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity. Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy. This action has been performed automatically by a bot. |
The paths/url references inside files were not changed to allow for dynamic paths
Added the ability to utlize dynamic paths from within the project structure