Run on additions, not just modifications #422
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
houndci-bot
reviewed
Feb 19, 2021
RobinDaugherty
force-pushed
the
feature/run-on-additions
branch
from
76f3565 to
3e3e1c4
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Some platforms (notably years-broken Docker Desktop) don't reliably notify of file modifications. It's caused a problem that guard-rspec is one of the few guards that does not run on file additions.
I haven't been able to find a reason that guard-rspec doesn't run on additions. In #391 it's discussed without any detractors.
There seems to be no downside to running on both file additions as well as modifications. For those running on macOS with Docker Desktop and listener, it seems to be necessary.
A workaround I've seen is adding the following to the
Guardfile:Guard::RSpec.class_eval { alias_method :run_on_additions, :run_on_modifications }But I would rather not continue to have to work around this shortcoming, especially when the fix seems to have no downside.