porter 1.0.17 (new formula)

[SpiffyEight77]

• 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>?

---

[github-actions]

Thanks for contributing to Homebrew! 🎉 It looks like you're having trouble with a CI failure. See our contribution guide for help. You may be most interested in the section on dealing with CI failures. You can find the CI logs in the Checks tab of your pull request.

[chenrui333]

Suggested change

	url "https://github.com/SpiffyEight77/porter.git",
	url "https://github.com/getporter/porter.git",

[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.

[chenrui333]

@SpiffyEight77 any reason why you are using the fork?

[SpiffyEight77]

@SpiffyEight77 any reason why you are using the fork?

@chenrui333

Thank you for reviewing this PR.

I'm building from the forked version because this PR is still being tested due to an issue with magefiles in the official repository. I will update the repository URL once I resolve this issue.

Apologies for any confusion caused.

Here is the issue in building step

panic: could not open the file referenced by GITHUB_ENV: open /Users/brew/actions-runner/_work/_temp/_runner_file_commands/set_env_882a13a2-dbb3-4db8-b010-c638106217ab: operation not permitted

[chenrui333]

  porter
    * GitHub fork (not canonical repository)

[chenrui333]

Suggested change

	homepage "https://porter.sh"
	url "https://github.com/SpiffyEight77/porter.git",
	tag: "v1.0.17",
	revision: "07959e4fb02296895fc3b115ecd61f93b984a7dc"
	homepage "https://porter.sh/"
	url "https://github.com/getporter/porter/archive/refs/tags/v1.0.17.tar.gz"
	sha256 "5262251aba930331b0e3b83cb971f6d138611b37b81af621606b6578739b5e9a"

[chenrui333]

maybe next release, relates to getporter/porter#3064

[SpiffyEight77]

maybe next release, relates to getporter/porter#3064

@chenrui333
This issue has been resolved, and I am discussing with the maintainer the possibility of re-releasing v1.0.17 with the latest dependency, relates to getporter/porter#3045

Can I specify a commit revision for the build formula? The process uses git commands, but the tar.gz file doesn't include a .git directory. 🙇🏻‍♂️

  homepage "https://porter.sh"
  url "https://github.com/getporter/porter.git",
  tag:      "v1.0.17",
  revision: "605e399737c5c89f0ce692c6aa3d9e6211250c95"