cloudflare-cli4 2.19.4 (new formula)

[dgellow]

• Have you followed the guidelines for contributing?
• Have you ensured that your commits follow the commit style guide?
• Have you checked that there aren't other open pull requests for the same formula update/change?
• Have you built your formula locally with HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Is your test running fine brew test <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Does your build pass brew audit --strict <formula> (after doing HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>)? If this is a new formula, does it pass brew audit --new <formula>?

---

Hi,

I'm opening this pull request to add a new formula to Homebrew for the CLI tool cli4 used to interact with Cloudflare API v4.

The audit is currently failing with:

cloudflare-cli4
  * GitHub repository not notable enough (<30 forks, <30 watchers and <75 stars)
Error: 1 problem in 1 formula detected.

The command line tool has been extracted from https://github.com/cloudflare/python-cloudflare to https://github.com/cloudflare/python-cloudflare-cli4 only yesterday, making it difficult for the repository to reach that level of notoriety. But the version that was packaged alongside cloudflare on PyPi exists since multiple years and has been advertised by Cloudflare (see this blog post for example: https://blog.cloudflare.com/python-cloudflare).

The next version of the python SDK won't be packaged with the CLI anymore and we want to ensure it stays available to current users.

I haven't contributed formulas to homebrews since a very long time, please tell me if I should correct anything.

[chenrui333]

We need a test that exercises the some of the functionality of the app. Version checks or usage checks (foo --version or foo --help) are not sufficient, as explained in the formula cookbook.

In most cases, a good test would involve running a simple test case: run #{bin}/foo input.txt.

• Then you can check that the output is as expected (with assert_equal or assert_match on the output of shell_output)
• You can also check that an output file was created, if that is expected: assert_predicate testpath/"output.txt", :exist?

Some advice for specific cases:

• If the formula is a library, compile and run some simple code that links against it. It could be taken from upstream's documentation / source examples.
• If the formula is for a GUI program, try to find some function that runs as command-line only, like a format conversion, reading or displaying a config file, etc.
• If the software cannot function without credentials, a test could be to try to connect with invalid credentials (or without credentials) and confirm that it fails as expected.
• Same if the software requires a virtual machine, docker instance, etc. to be running.

[dgellow]

Noted, thanks for the feedback.

I did see that section of the cookbook and thought the last line would apply here:

We want tests that don’t require any user input and test the basic functionality of the application. For example foo build-foo input.foo is a good test and (despite their widespread use) foo --version and foo --help are bad tests. 
However, a bad test is better than no test at all.

But I will try to find a better test case

[dgellow]

@chenrui333 Could you clarify if sending requests to an external API would be ok in a test case? From what I understand tests aren't expected to be run on end users machines, so that shouldn't be a privacy issue. But I also wouldn't expect Homebrew to be ok with tests sending requests to cloudflare.

[dgellow]

I think cli4 --dump could work here. The CLI tool is really about sending requests, so that doesn't really test the core behaviour, but that's for sure better than --help and --version.

The output is 889 lines, is there a way to assert over something that large, or is it ok to match a subset of the output?

[chenrui333]

The output is 889 lines, is there a way to assert over something that large, or is it ok to match a subset of the output?

you can match the subset.

[chenrui333]

just need to be a bit substantial than help and version

[chenrui333]

@dgellow any update on this?