Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[BUGFIX] Don't use destroyApp if new API is being used #16229

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 21, 2018

Conversation

Serabe
Copy link
Member

@Serabe Serabe commented Feb 9, 2018

Fixes #16180

@rwjblue
Copy link
Member

rwjblue commented Feb 10, 2018

This seems good, but I think you also need to fixup the fixture that we test against (the blueprint tests are failing)...

@Serabe
Copy link
Member Author

Serabe commented Feb 10, 2018 via email

@mixonic
Copy link
Member

mixonic commented Feb 13, 2018

Ping as a friendly reminder @Serabe!

@nag5000
Copy link

nag5000 commented Feb 16, 2018

instance-initializer-test blueprint also needs to be updated.

@Serabe
Copy link
Member Author

Serabe commented Feb 17, 2018

Had a tough week. Try to do it tomorrow, as today I am attending a conference.

@Serabe
Copy link
Member Author

Serabe commented Feb 18, 2018

Found the problem. I forgot to commit two files (-‸ლ)

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ module('<%= friendlyTestName %>', {
});
},
afterEach() {
destroyApp(this.application);
<% if (destroyAppExists) { %>destroyApp(this.application);<% } else { %>run(application, 'destroy');<% } %>
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should be run(this.application, ...)?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done. Thank you

@mixonic
Copy link
Member

mixonic commented Feb 21, 2018

@rwjblue I believe this is a bugfix for 3.0 stable?

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.

4 participants