Upgrade Aspen to 0.42 #788
Conversation
chadwhitacre
force-pushed
the
upgrade-aspen-to-0.42
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4a7f47a to
1b535ba
Compare
|
!m @whit537 I was trying to upgrade it myself after @techtonik's comment on the issue (he's completely right), I should have told it :-( Anyway, some code related to the menu is broken (cf Travis) and I was writing pages tests like it's done for gratipay.com so we don't have to ensure manually that all the pages are still working after one upgrade. I'll work on what's left 🐱 |
ghost
mentioned this pull request
|
Gah, sorry. I'm happy to take a look when I get a chance if you don't get to it first. |
|
Rebased, was 1b535ba. |
chadwhitacre
force-pushed
the
upgrade-aspen-to-0.42
branch
from
1b535ba to
3d10ed1
Compare
|
This is ready for review again @mattbk @techtonik @JessaWitzel et al. |
|
|
||
| @yield_fixture | ||
| def client(): | ||
| yield Client(www_root='www', project_root='') | ||
| client = Client(www_root='www', project_root='.') | ||
| client._website = website |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is this for? Why are we defining a _website variable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We're telling Aspen's testing infrastructure to use the website that we are making over in inside_gratipay/main.py, which is configured how we want it.
Under previous versions of Aspen, Aspen would look in the project root for a magically named file ("configure-aspen.py") and take configuration from there. The magic is gone in 0.42.
We no longer have a magically named config file. Instead, we have a regular Python module where we are to define our application.
Besides being more generally organized, this makes it easier to import .main.website into the test suite.
chadwhitacre
force-pushed
the
upgrade-aspen-to-0.42
branch
from
9e4ecaf to
cec6661
Compare
|
Rebased, was 9e4ecaf. |
|
Has this been deployed? |
|
Looks like: https://github.com/gratipay/gratipay.com/commits/master/www/version.txt. Version is bumped on deploy. |
Closes #766. Ready for review, @Nashe @techtonik! :-)