satellite-tracker 0.1.20 (new formula)

[jaxvanyang]

Also deleted an old rename entry due to conflict. I think it's safe to do so because the former tracker seems to be a part of tinysparql, most of people may just install tinysparql if them want it.

Refs: ShenMian/tracker#26

---

• 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>?
• Is your test running fine brew test <formula>?
• 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>?

---

• AI was used to generate or assist with generating this PR. Please specify below how you used AI to help you, and what steps you have taken to manually verify the changes.

---

[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.

[p-linnane]

The rename should not be removed. If you want to submit this, you can name it shenmian-tracker.

[jaxvanyang]

The rename should not be removed. If you want to submit this, you can name it shenmian-tracker.

Thank you for your suggestion, didn't know that I could prefix the author's name. I'll rename the package and revert the deletion. Before that, I want to ask the author if he/she wants another name @ShenMian. And I'm trying to fix the CI.

[ShenMian]

@jaxvanyang Thank you for your work. I think a more semantic name like satellite-tracker might be better?

By the way, why is the version number 0.12.0? Is there any SemVer consideration behind it?

[SMillerDev]

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.

[jaxvanyang]

Sorry for that I didn't mention this in the comment. This is a TUI application, its usage is just:

Usage: tracker

Options:
  -h, --help     Print help
  -V, --version  Print version

So I can only run this command-line only function. I know this is a bad test, but the doc also says bad test is better than no test.

[jaxvanyang]

@jaxvanyang Thank you for your work. I think a more semantic name like satellite-tracker might be better?

By the way, why is the version number 0.12.0? Is there any SemVer consideration behind it?

Oops, I made a typo on the version number, I'll fix that. I agree with you, the name can make users more clear.