poverobuosodonati <poverobuosodon...@gmail.com> writes:

>> 1. Let's call the file a part of Emacs (we plan to move tests to Emacs 
>> eventually)
>
> For this I would need some additional support as I don't exactly 
> understand what you mean here. Do you mean where to put it as in like 
> "emacs/test/lisp" instead of "org-mode/testing/lisp"?

No. I was mostly objecting "this file is not a part of Emacs" line.
Better use testing/lisp/text-ox-md.el header that does not have such
line. (This thing is rather minor)

>> 2. Please prefix the macro and function names (with-...)
> Done.

Sorry, I was not clear. I asked you to use a unique prefix, not just with-... 
prefix.
Something like (test-ob-csharp-with-... ...)

See D.1 Emacs Lisp Coding Conventions section of Elisp manual.

Also, "with-" specifically is mostly used for macros. I did not mean to
rename functions (it makes no sense there).

Finally, `with-try-set-dotnet-version' is questionable. It is used once
so you may as well put the code directly inside `with-newest-dotnet'.

Here is what I suggest:
1. Rename `with-find-dotnet-version' to `test-ob-csharp--find-dotnet-version'
2. Rename `system-dotnet-version' to `test-ob-csharp-system-dotnet-version'
3. Get rid of `with-try-set-dotnet-version' inlining its code directly
   into `with-newest-dotnet'
4. Rename `with-newest-dotnet' to `test-ob-csharp-with-newest-dotnet'
5. `test-ob-csharp-with-newest-dotnet' may benefit from (declare (indent 1))

Also, few more comments on the documentation + tests:

1. There is no need to document :dir header argument. It is already
   described in the main Org manual.
2. :main yes does not appear to be test-covered unless I miss something
3. :nugetconfig is not test-covered
4. :framework is not test-covered
5. :class is not test-covered (when set to a string)

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode maintainer,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>

Reply via email to