Thanks ahead of time

Question

enough-analyst-54434 · Answer

That raise is at least three years old so you re likely the first to use setup py in this way The raise was probably added as part of an opposite confusion issue where some pants users were confused by noops ie a fix for your issue will noop on this command line instead of arguably helpfully erroring to prompt the user to re evaluate what they re doing ` pants setup py src java ` I don t see an issue with a PR to fix this but globally I think this is also whack a mole Perhaps this indicates Pants should know about a batch mode vs an interactive one With this concept in hand ` changed` would imply batch and in batch tasks would not error if their was no work In interactive mode they perhaps uniformly would error with no work when explicitly listed as goals on the command line This is all a bit tricky to get right in both cases

aloof-angle-91616 · Answer

` changed` would imply batch is really interesting

aloof-angle-91616 · Answer

it seems like a perpendicular enough axis to things like ` quiet` too

aloof-angle-91616 · Answer

would definitely assume it s tricky to get right that s a distinction i hadn t thought fully about but started to with e g making glob expansion failures only warn if none of the default ones matched

aloof-angle-91616 · Answer

the batch interactive split seems robust

aloof-angle-91616 · Answer

i really like this idea it seems pretty strange to have to check whether there are any changes in order to run your command that runs on changes safely

aloof-angle-91616 · Answer

it could also be an opportunity to formalize some of this exit with failure don t exit with failure logic that all tasks implicitly have it seems like if conforming to this option could encourage centralizing that logic it would make it easier to understand for other tasks depending on the products

aloof-angle-91616 · Answer

it could take the form of e g an argument to `self invalidated ` or maybe some other override

aloof-angle-91616 · Answer

wait this is great because tasks nooping performantly without error is already a problem

aloof-angle-91616 · Answer

that comment in `select interpreter py` about having to make an interpreter anyway for simplicity downstream always rankled me not as a bad idea but that it was necessary

aloof-angle-91616 · Answer

now i m just having wild thoughts about v2 v1 engine task integration sorry

creamy-activity-5659 · Answer

Hey thanks for your responses here I m a few hours ahead so I was long done for the day when you responded slightly smiling face If I can pick yours brains a bit further I m open to ideas to workaround it Also if I were to submit a PR would the pants team be willing to backport to 1 8 on a 1 8 1 release

aloof-angle-91616 · Answer

it would likely depend on how much it ends up changing pants internals for fixing your problem i think a PR that is backportable seems way reasonable but john will know that way more than me

creamy-activity-5659 · Answer

Cool I think the batch interactive fix would certainly workaround the issues without introducing a breaking change

creamy-activity-5659 · Answer

I will wait for a green light before pursuing a fix

aloof-angle-91616 · Answer

i think that s really feasible too actually i just think the batch interactive thing is so cool

aloof-angle-91616 · Answer

i just assumed it couldn t be backportable it totally could

aloof-angle-91616 · Answer

i m mostly new here

creamy-activity-5659 · Answer

+1 skin tone 2

enough-analyst-54434 · Answer

< creamy activity 5659> I think filing an issue and whacking the mole is the way to go here to get this cherry picked to 1 8 x Even if the batch interactive idea survives scrutiny that s a larger change I d want wider discussion acceptance of

creamy-activity-5659 · Answer

Great thanks John I ll move the conversation to github and file an issue Thanks again for your time