Implement new spec for dep ensure
#489
Conversation
Still missing varied error handling on the other side of the solve; need a bitfield to represent all of the state properties we infer about each spec argument.
cmd/dep/ensure.go
Outdated
| applyUpdateArgs(args, ¶ms) | ||
| } else { | ||
| err := applyEnsureArgs(ctx.Loggers.Err, args, cmd.overrides, p, sm, ¶ms) | ||
| var fail error |
|
Pretty close to all tests passing, now - just three small harness ones left. After that, docs, covering some more crucial failure cases, and writing up a ton of issues. Then this'll be ready to 🚢 |
|
OK, we've got the basics in place! i also refactored to correctly validate and handle cases where multiple packages from a single project are specified. now, i need to catch up and resolve conflicts, and then add a bunch more test cases. (and fix whatever bugs those tests reveal) |
cmd/dep/ensure.go
Outdated
| func (cmd *ensureCommand) Args() string { return "[spec...]" } | ||
| func (cmd *ensureCommand) Name() string { return "ensure" } | ||
| func (cmd *ensureCommand) Args() string { | ||
| return "[-update | -add] [-no-vendor | -vendor-only] [<spec>...]" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't we add -examples and -dry-run here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh yes, i missed -dry-run, tyty.
-examples...i'm not actually sure, it's a flavor of a help command. seems like those are often omitted in arg lists like these?
Also some comment cleanup, and relocate an errant test.
cmd/dep/status.go
Outdated
| @@ -261,7 +261,8 @@ func runStatusAll(ctx *dep.Ctx, out outputter, p *dep.Project, sm gps.SourceMana | |||
| var digestMismatch, hasMissingPkgs bool | |||
|
|
|||
| if p.Lock == nil { | |||
| return digestMismatch, hasMissingPkgs, errors.Errorf("no Gopkg.lock found. Run `dep ensure` to generate lock file") | |||
| // TODO if we have no lock file, do...other stuff | |||
| return digestMismatch, hasMissingPkgs, nil | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do not forget to rebase this 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ahh ty that must have happened in a git checkout --strategy=ours
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this also indicates a detailed review of the changes to existing files is necessary - i may have unintentionally overwritten some other changes, too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should be fixed, i redid the merge without --strategy=ours, that was dumb
|
here we go! |
sdboyer
changed the title
dep ensuredep ensure
Bring README up to date after #489
This PR is a WIP towards implementing the new spec for
dep ensure, as given in the doc linked from #277.Fixes #883