Skip to content

Conversation

@louisvdaily
Copy link

Purpose

  • Feature
  • Bug Fix
  • Hotfix
  • Other

Associated Tickets

Details

This is a thing that does stuff for widgets.

Checklist

  • Tests
  • Correct base and merge branches

Copy link

@pullrequest pullrequest bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

✅ This pull request was sent to the PullRequest network.


@louisvdaily you can click here to see the review status or cancel the code review job.

Copy link

@pullrequest pullrequest bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks straightforward and presumably if CI passes, this will be (mostly 🤞️) quite reasonable. Added a small comment on the new wrapper script to perhaps make its tricky bit (the list of excluded architectures) slightly more maintainable.

Image of Olivier LF Olivier LF


Was this helpful? Yes | No

Reviewers will be notified any time you reply to their comments or commit new changes.
You can also request a full follow-up review from your PullRequest dashboard.


# For Xcode 12 make sure EXCLUDED_ARCHS is set to arm architectures otherwise
# the build will fail on lipo due to duplicate architectures.
echo 'EXCLUDED_ARCHS__EFFECTIVE_PLATFORM_SUFFIX_simulator__NATIVE_ARCH_64_BIT_x86_64__XCODE_1200 = arm64 arm64e armv7 armv7s armv6 armv8' >> $xcconfig
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a way to generate the list of architectures here instead of hardcoding it (or at least can you move it to a "constant" variable defined at the top of the file?

Given this needs to be an explicit exclusion list I presume it would break if a new architecture were to be added, which might lead to future maintenance overhead.

Image of Olivier LF Olivier LF

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with the comment made by my friend Oliver about avoiding hardcoding, as it's difficult to maintain the code in the long run.

Image of Puneet K Puneet K

Copy link

@pullrequest pullrequest bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Based on the description, this implementation looks sound, and straight forward. I have reviewed the code and I don't see any outstanding issue.

Image of Puneet K Puneet K


Was this helpful? Yes | No

Reviewers will be notified any time you reply to their comments or commit new changes.
You can also request a full follow-up review from your PullRequest dashboard.

Copy link

@pullrequest pullrequest bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Warning

PullRequest detected a force-push on this branch. This may have caused some information to be lost, and additional time may be required to complete review of the code. Read More

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 7, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #39 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master      #39   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.08%   95.08%           
=======================================
  Files          35       35           
  Lines         712      712           
=======================================
  Hits          677      677           
  Misses         35       35           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 7dc2967...48c78c7. Read the comment docs.

Copy link

@pullrequest pullrequest bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Due to inactivity, PullRequest has cancelled this review job. You can reactivate the code review job from the PullRequest dashboard.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant