Commit d0bce7eb authored by Jamie Tanna's avatar Jamie Tanna

Add missing text from TODOs

It appears that there are a number of posts that had `??`s in them, my
indicator that there's a TODO to implement, which missed
self-code-review.

Closes #568.
parent 671e4f53
Pipeline #70182850 passed with stages
in 5 minutes and 37 seconds
......@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ end
# Defensive `include_recipe`s
However, if we have this running, it won't flag up `include_recipe` being called on any other recipes that we've not predicted in our tests. Yes, this should be more obvious when practicing TDD, but it **???**. This would mean that recipes could be silently executing in the background, slowing down tests, which may not be as noticeable in the case that they don't require any extra attributes set.
However, if we have this running, it won't flag up `include_recipe` being called on any other recipes that we've not predicted in our tests. Yes, this should be more obvious when practicing TDD, but it still doesn't actual fail our tests if we're not catching anything. This would mean that recipes could be silently executing in the background, slowing down tests, which may not be as noticeable in the case that they don't require any extra attributes set.
To do this, we can utilise RSpec Mocks again, but this time, we can `raise` if there's a non-whitelisted recipe called.
......
......@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ Much like [Coding For Violent Psychopaths][coding-for-violent-psychopaths] (via
> Always code as if the person who ends up maintaining your code is a violent psychopath who knows where you live.
Along these lines, Parham started the talk off with how we would _interact_ with someone who wrote the code that we've just found is poorly documented, and went through to discussing the ways in which we should be **??**.
Along these lines, Parham started the talk off with how we would _interact_ with someone who wrote the code that we've just found is poorly documented, and went through to discussing the ways in which we should be more empathetic.
I'll cover this in a [follow-up article][parham-article-issue], as there were some great points Parham raised that I'd like to add some extra commentary to.
......
......@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ When reviewing a Merge Request, it can be often more helpful to check out the co
If you're not wanting to just use [GitLab's Web IDE](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/web_ide/), you would want to do this locally. However, that'd require you to `git clone` the fork, and check out their branch, right?
Not quite! GitLab actually provides a [Git ref](https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Internals-Git-References) that allows you to check out **??**
Not quite! GitLab actually provides a [Git ref](https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Internals-Git-References) that allows you to check out the Pull Request from within the local repo!
And in action:
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment