Conversation
|
Hello! 👋 Thanks for opening this pull request! Please check out our contributing guidelines. We appreciate you taking the initiative to contribute to this project. Contributing isn't limited to just code. We encourage you to contribute in the way that best fits your abilities, by writing tutorials, giving a demo at your local meetup, helping other users with their support questions, or revising our documentation. Here are some useful Composer commands to get you started:
To run a single Behat test, you can use the following command: # Run all tests in a single file
composer behat features/some-feature.feature
# Run only a specific scenario (where 123 is the line number of the "Scenario:" title)
composer behat features/some-feature.feature:123You can find a list of all available Behat steps in our handbook. |
Summary of ChangesHello, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request addresses a critical regression in the Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here. Footnotes
|
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request fixes a regression in the wp eval command, making $assoc_args available to the executed code again. This is achieved by passing the variable into the execution closure. A corresponding feature test has been added to verify the functionality. The change correctly resolves the described issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Fixes a regression introduced by the deferred-execution closure approach (from #84) where $assoc_args was no longer available to code executed via wp eval, especially when deferred to a WordPress hook.
Changes:
- Capture
$assoc_argsin thewp evalexecution closure so evaluated code can access it. - Add a Behat scenario asserting
$assoc_argsis available (including args provided viawp-cli.yml).
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
src/Eval_Command.php |
Captures $assoc_args into the eval closure so evaluated code can reference it reliably. |
features/eval.feature |
Adds a regression test ensuring $assoc_args is accessible from wp eval code. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
You can also share your feedback on Copilot code review. Take the survey.
42ec6f4 to
63dbc3a
Compare
Fixes a regression introduced with the closure approach in #84