Conversation
|
Thank you for this. Is it possible to have the script within the strategy or does it need to be a separate file? |
|
No idea I'm afraid, I just copied the existing approach of calling AppleScript (which is only |
|
|
||
| function! test#strategy#ghostty(cmd) abort | ||
| let cmd = join(['cd ' . shellescape(getcwd()), s:pretty_command(a:cmd)], '; ') | ||
| call s:execute_script('osx_ghostty', cmd) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would this only work for people on macOS or would it also work on Linux?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good question, Ghostty is available on both macOS and Linux https://ghostty.org/docs/install/binary and it looks like Windows support is in progress.
I use macOS and MacVim. I imagine the AppleScript-driven terminal/iterm strategies specifically mention MacVim because its users likely want to retain the app workflow with a separate editor app and a separate terminal app. I suppose if you run Vim within Ghostty there'd be an existing strategy that would allow you to shell out to the terminal or you could use an embedded terminal - but I don't know about that because I've only ever used vim-test with MacVim and the terminal strategy.
So I don't know if there'd be another need for a ghostty strategy that doesn't use AppleScript, but I don't think there's anything offensive about renaming it applescript_ghostty or something like that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd suggest renaming the script to macos_ghostty, wrapping the call in if has('mac') and updating the docs to make it clear this strategy only works on macOS
2 participants
Make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request:
Add fixtures and spec when implementing or updating a test runnerI don't see existing tests for the other AppleScript strategies...doc/test.txtAppleScript support was added to Ghostty in version 1.3.