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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Port BasicNavigationBar.CodeSpit to the new test harness #57738
Port BasicNavigationBar.CodeSpit to the new test harness #57738
Changes from all commits
c97882e
72ee59c
30d2570
f2ed9fc
3c57e4b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
well that's terrifying :)
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.
➡️ Copied from old test harness. Happy to use a new approach if we find one.
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.
good god.
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.
who do we send feedback to that VS/editor needs a proper, resilient, testing API so we can do this sort of validation without this stuff?
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.
Maybe @AmadeusW ?
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.
would it be useful at all to have logs on failure cases here, or do the dumps typically contain all the information we'd need to verify which of these error cases we're hitting?
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.
➡️ It definitely wouldn't hurt, especially considering the next like after calling
TryGetCodeWindow
is alwaysAssumes.Present
. For now I'm OK keeping this form for two reasons: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.
taht wfm. it's generally waht i've done when there are issues and the logs aren't sufficient.
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.
can we track removing this somehow?
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.
This code will disable itself at the appropriate time when integration test machines update, so I probably wouldn't bother tracking separately. If we file an issue, it will likely just end up in the backlog and never get seen again, where it may or may not be updated after someone eventually removes this block.
I'd probably take a different approach if this was production code.
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.
nit - maybe have a small helper to extract the text w/out the $$ since it looks like you do it here and on line 129
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.
➡️ It looks like this is cleaned up a bit in a pull request I'm submitting after this one, so I'll leave it here for now.