-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 287
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
Restore printing full paths to files containing absolute paths. #1455
Merged
BillyONeal
merged 1 commit into
microsoft:main
from
BillyONeal:put-full-paths-back-for-absolute
Jul 23, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
@@ -1283,7 +1283,7 @@ DECLARE_MESSAGE(FilesContainAbsolutePath1, | |||||
"followed by a list of found files.", | ||||||
"There should be no absolute paths, such as the following, in an installed package. To suppress this " | ||||||
"message, add set(VCPKG_POLICY_SKIP_ABSOLUTE_PATHS_CHECK enabled)") | ||||||
DECLARE_MESSAGE(FilesContainAbsolutePath2, (), "", "Absolute paths were found in the following files") | ||||||
DECLARE_MESSAGE(FilesContainAbsolutePath2, (), "", "Absolute paths found here") | ||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
|
||||||
DECLARE_MESSAGE(FilesContainAbsolutePathPkgconfigNote, | ||||||
(), | ||||||
"", | ||||||
|
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am a bit sad to lose the form that a user would say in
portfile.cmake
in order to edit one of these files but making the paths clickable is probably worth it anyway... should we keep printing${CURRENT_PACKAGES_DIR}
here to make it easier for the user to figure that out?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can see arguments either way... though doesn't this apply to most post-lint checks? Maybe it should be centralized (printed once at the beginning or end of the post-lint checks if any fired)