https://pantsbuild.org/ logo
Powered by
#general
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    02/11/2016, 8:24 PM
    ...but could probably bisect if you reproduce in pantsbuild/pants
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    02/11/2016, 8:24 PM
    (99.9% of our globs usage internally use exensions)
  • m

    mammoth-pharmacist-54215

    02/11/2016, 8:27 PM
    @bored-art-40741: are there any reasons that a non synthetic target would not have an address attribute. For ref: https://rbcommons.com/s/twitter/r/3454/
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    02/11/2016, 8:27 PM
    @mammoth-pharmacist-54215: the thing that is failing is the 
    build_file
    access, no?
  • b

    bored-art-40741

    02/11/2016, 8:28 PM
    All targets have 
    address
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    02/11/2016, 8:28 PM
    a synthetic target doesn't have a 
    build_file
    .
  • m

    mammoth-pharmacist-54215

    02/11/2016, 8:28 PM
    correct
  • m

    mammoth-pharmacist-54215

    02/11/2016, 8:28 PM
    thats why I modified the code to check to see if it was synthetic
  • b

    bored-art-40741

    02/11/2016, 8:28 PM
    There are no guarantees about the type of address that's on a target
  • b

    bored-art-40741

    02/11/2016, 8:28 PM
    i.e. whether or not it's a 
    BuildFileAddress
  • m

    mammoth-pharmacist-54215

    02/11/2016, 8:28 PM
    previously it was just checking for the address attrib and then failing when there was no build_file attrib.
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    02/11/2016, 8:29 PM
    alternatively, could check for the build_file attrib
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    02/11/2016, 8:29 PM
    in theory, all non-synthetic targets will have a build_file on their addresses
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    02/11/2016, 8:29 PM
    but... yea
  • b

    bored-art-40741

    02/11/2016, 8:29 PM
    cc @red-cpu-25099
  • b

    bored-art-40741

    02/11/2016, 8:29 PM
    His new abstraction might be the better way to handle this
  • j

    jolly-chef-92794

    02/11/2016, 8:41 PM
    Someone want to take a look at this? It’s a pretty simple bugfix. https://rbcommons.com/s/twitter/r/3452/
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    02/11/2016, 10:24 PM
    @mammoth-pharmacist-54215: a potential gut check for marking things public: is anyone using it? should anyone be using it?
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    02/11/2016, 10:24 PM
    if the answer to both of those is "no", then we should almost certainly not mark
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    02/11/2016, 10:25 PM
    and even in some cases where only the answer to the first question is 'yes', we should probably still not mark, because we don't want to support it
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    02/11/2016, 10:25 PM
    as you've said, easy to add later
  • m

    mammoth-pharmacist-54215

    02/11/2016, 10:33 PM
    sounds reasonable to me
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    02/11/2016, 10:33 PM
    thanks for working on this
  • m

    mammoth-pharmacist-54215

    02/11/2016, 10:33 PM
    no problem
  • h

    happy-kitchen-89482

    02/11/2016, 10:33 PM
    Yeah, way easier to add than to remove...
  • m

    mammoth-pharmacist-54215

    02/11/2016, 10:44 PM
    agreed, thanks to everyone for sanity checking me.
  • m

    mammoth-pharmacist-54215

    02/11/2016, 11:10 PM
    looks like travis may have gone crazy again.
  • m

    mammoth-pharmacist-54215

    02/11/2016, 11:11 PM
    I’m seeing these same errors in my PR as Garrett’s last commit.
  • w

    wide-energy-11069

    02/11/2016, 11:23 PM
    should
    Copy code
    --[no-]options-only-functioning (default: False)
    Show only functioning options, equivalent to all options except deprecated
    default true or false?
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    02/11/2016, 11:24 PM
    @wide-energy-11069: there are three states, as far as i know: 0) normal, 1) deprecated, 2) non-functioning
1...979980981...2420Latest