Skip to content
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

Adjust generated scenarios #13

Open
Turbo87 opened this issue Nov 6, 2017 · 6 comments
Open

Adjust generated scenarios #13

Turbo87 opened this issue Nov 6, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

@Turbo87
Copy link
Member

Turbo87 commented Nov 6, 2017

As mentioned in #3 there are some situations where it would be useful to adjust the list of generated scenarios afterwards by e.g. adding or overwriting certain dependencies or even cloning generated scenarios.

Instead of implicitly generating the scenarios when useVersionCompatibility is used I would suggest to explicitly require('ember-try-config') and then put something like scenarios: generateScenarios() in your config/ember-try.js file.

That way the generateScenarios() result could be written into a temporary variable if needed and then adjusted afterwards.

/cc @rwjblue @kategengler

@rwjblue
Copy link
Member

rwjblue commented Nov 6, 2017

Agreed.

@Turbo87
Copy link
Member Author

Turbo87 commented Nov 6, 2017

@rwjblue I just noticed an issue with this proposal which unfortunately makes it a little harder to backport: the generateScenarios() function would have to be async and I don't think ember-try is able to handle async yet... 🤔

@kategengler
Copy link
Member

That seems fine to me, so long as the use of versionCompatibility in the package.json stays (I still have an outside hope of using that to get addons to declare their compatibility).

@Turbo87
Copy link
Member Author

Turbo87 commented Nov 6, 2017

@kategengler yes, I'm fine with that. the default of generateScenarios() would be to look at the package.json file for versionCompatibility unless specified otherwise.

@locks
Copy link

locks commented Jul 23, 2023

Is this still relevant?

@kategengler
Copy link
Member

Yes, discussion of a similar solution is ongoing, including here: #192 (comment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants