A new rule that makes sure the user have explained the reason of reverting #31
A new rule that makes sure the user have explained the reason of reverting #31tehraninasab wants to merge 9 commits intonblockchain:masterfrom
Conversation
|
CI is red. |
commitlintplugins.test.ts
Outdated
| test('proper-revert-message2', () => { | ||
| let commitMsgWithProperRevertMessage = | ||
| 'Revert 9bb557e54830690b8a8e403d1b74780d86b07b4c\n\n' + | ||
| 'We need to revert this commit, because/otherwise bla bla.' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
let's make the commit message identical to the one in the first test, except for adding the reasoning later; we don't need the user to re-write the revert commit message, we want the user to expand on it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like to see the commit "set defaultIgnores to false" be green after a red one (so that it's clear that it's what makes the test pass), but I can't see that:
Oh, you are right. It's a squashed branch, and the previous branch was far behind the master and had conflicts with the master branch so I had to rebase it when I wanted to create a PR. Therefore it can't be seen now. What should I do?
|
|
||
| if (lineBreakIndex >= 0){ | ||
| // Extracting bodyStr from rawStr rather than using body directly is a | ||
| // workaround for https://github.com/conventional-changelog/commitlint/issues/3412 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why do we need the workaround here if the tests don't involve references?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are right, but shouldn't I add a test that involves references? I thought it was possible in revert messages too
|
I'd like to see the commit "set defaultIgnores to false" be green after a red one (so that it's clear that it's what makes the test pass), but I can't see that:
|
User need to explain the reason of reverting not re-writing it.
tehraninasab
force-pushed
the
properRevertMessage-squashed
branch
from
c0c05a1 to
938bc4c
Compare
|
This PR is closed and replaced by another PR because of some version control problems. |
2 participants
No description provided.