Unable to see a macro defined in an included file

[boutell]

Please see:

#465

For a pull request that adds a unit test for this. It seems pretty straightforward: a macro defined in a file fetched with a simple "include" is not visible after the "include."

[ArmorDarks]

Hm, I thought it should work that way...

I've mentioned about it in very old issue #309, but nobody paid any attention to it, so I thought it's just as per design.

I'm glad that in fact it isn't.

[boutell]

Serj, when you found this didn't work, what version of Nunjucks were you
using? I ask because it looks like it ought to work in the 1.x series,
based on the fact that Apostrophe depends on the 1.x series (using the ^ in
package.json).

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Serj Lavrin [email protected]
wrote:

Hm, I thought it should work that way...

I've mentioned about it in very old issue #309
#309, but nobody paid any
attention to it, so I thought it's just as per design.

I'm glad that in fact it isn't.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#466 (comment).

*THOMAS BOUTELL, *DEV & OPS
P'UNK AVENUE | (215) 755-1330 | punkave.com

[boutell]

I can verify this feature works in nunjucks 1.3.4.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Tom Boutell [email protected] wrote:

Serj, when you found this didn't work, what version of Nunjucks were you
using? I ask because it looks like it ought to work in the 1.x series,
based on the fact that Apostrophe depends on the 1.x series (using the ^ in
package.json).

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Serj Lavrin [email protected]
wrote:

Hm, I thought it should work that way...

I've mentioned about it in very old issue #309
#309, but nobody paid any
attention to it, so I thought it's just as per design.

I'm glad that in fact it isn't.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#466 (comment).

*THOMAS BOUTELL, *DEV & OPS
P'UNK AVENUE | (215) 755-1330 | punkave.com

*THOMAS BOUTELL, *DEV & OPS
P'UNK AVENUE | (215) 755-1330 | punkave.com

[ArmorDarks]

Can't tell for sure. Something around 1.1.0. Definitely not higher

[boutell]

My test passes in v1.3.4. Just verified that.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Serj Lavrin [email protected]
wrote:

Can't tell for sure. Something around 1.1.0, maybe few minor versions
less, but definitely not higher

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#466 (comment).

*THOMAS BOUTELL, *DEV & OPS
P'UNK AVENUE | (215) 755-1330 | punkave.com

[boutell]

(I also updated my test to avoid a false positive due to testing for the
wrong result string.)

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Tom Boutell [email protected] wrote:

My test passes in v1.3.4. Just verified that.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Serj Lavrin [email protected]
wrote:

Can't tell for sure. Something around 1.1.0, maybe few minor versions
less, but definitely not higher

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#466 (comment).

*THOMAS BOUTELL, *DEV & OPS
P'UNK AVENUE | (215) 755-1330 | punkave.com

*THOMAS BOUTELL, *DEV & OPS
P'UNK AVENUE | (215) 755-1330 | punkave.com

[ArmorDarks]

Just for the clarity: #465