Handle unexpected suffix "-rbl" in version comparison #38
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
Some apps updated via Rebble have the suffix "-rbl", e.g. "1.0-rbl".
`int("0-rbl")` raises an exception, making it impossible to update to "1.1"
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hello, thank you for keeping Pebble alive!
I tried to update a watchface I previously updated via an older Rebble interface, and it didn't go well.
I realised it had an irregular version of
1.0-rbl, which I suppose was manually created by the staff, as such version was impossible to create with thepebble buildcommand.Such version casuses trouble when updating via the current Rebble Dev Portal, as the current version comparison function (reasonably) expect a version to be numbers separated by dots.
I workedaround the issue by making the new version
2.0, but it would be better if it's handled properly.Please let me know if this is the only irregular case or am I still missing something.
Cheers