Refactor #6
Merged
Refactor #6
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Looks like tests are passing. Forgot to mention, this is based on #5. Separately hope to refactor the tests as well. |
| @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ | |||
| PATH | |||
| remote: . | |||
| specs: | |||
| html-proofer (0.0.16) | |||
| html-proofer (0.0.16bb) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Debugging artifact, re-bundled and pushed.
|
<3 <3 <3 <3 Fucking open source, I love it. |
gjtorikian
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 14, 2013
|
0.1.0 is released. |
riccardoporreca
added a commit
to riccardoporreca/html-proofer
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 14, 2023
* Most of the logic is legacy from the very early HTMLProofer, and is irrelevant not since `@filename` can only be the file where the link is defined, with `File.join` properly handling both same-directory, nested, and parent links, together with the ultimate `File.expand_path` in `absolute_path. * The legacy logic comes pretty much from gjtorikian#6 and gjtorikian#23. * This way we can also avoid `File.exist`, which can ultimately be delegated to checking the existence, not constructing the path.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
After digging around in the code a bit, it struck me that quadruple nested if loops may not be the bets way to go. This pull request refactors the link and images checkers for better relative URL support while also cleaning up the logic. As a result, several of the existing tests now properly fail, which required the creation of
spec/html/proofer/fixtures/brokenInternalLink.html,spec/html/proofer/fixtures/folder/anchorLink.html, andspec/html/proofer/fixtures/notarealhash.html, the modification ofspec/html/proofer/fixtures/brokenLinkWithNumber.html, and the removal ofspec/html/proofer/fixtures/missingImageDirPrefix.html.Specifically, it creates a
Checkableclass, which is extended and instantiated asLinkandImage, with proper object oriented methods for the various checks.Not sure if this is the best way to do things, and could probably use some clean up down the line, but believe the logic in the checks is now significantly clearer and was able to expose additional edge cases otherwise unhanded.
Thanks for a great, incredibly useful Gem. Looking forward to using it on my personal site.