Relative warps with slash #97
Conversation
Tests for this added
alpha-tango-kilo
force-pushed
the
relative-warps-with-slash
branch
from
10a14cc to
1118c92
Compare
alpha-tango-kilo
force-pushed
the
relative-warps-with-slash
branch
from
1118c92 to
bf84a49
Compare
|
No more debugging statements, more efficient logic, and documentation of feature. Tests to come! |
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| * You can also warp to a directory within `foo`, with autocompletion: | ||
| * You can also warp to a directory within `foo`: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Currently, doing wd foo b<TAB> will autocomplete to wd foo bar.
Are we proposing to change this with this PR? As far as I can tell, this PR doesn't prevent that behavior, though I believe it won't work with the new slash behavior.
Am I correct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I could replicate #51 so I've removed the autocompletion guarantee until it's bug-free. Technically not too related to this specific PR, could just be put straight onto master
|
@alpha-tango-kilo need any help with this one? Is it stuck? |
I'm never going to finish it - I don't have a particular interest in doing so, or an environment to use/test in. I believe I was stuck on writing tests properly for this. This PR will also need rebasing to updating in some way to get rid of the conflicts |
3 participants
What does this PR do/change?
Allows use of
wd foo/bar/bazas well as the currentwd foo bar/baz.That is to warp to
fooand then cd to./bar/bazDoes this PR fix an issue?
Will close #66
How stable do you consider this PR?
Needs tests.
This PR also requires the merge of #96, as while not strictly dependent, it would be a poor user experience
Does your PR pass all tests?
N/A
Do your changes need new tests to cover them, and if so, have you written the tests?
Both the current implementation with subdirectories as a separate argument, and my new implementation aren't covered by tests.
I intend to write tests to cover both