docs: updates the node formula example to use the node installed by Homebrew #17539
Conversation
ctaintor
changed the title
ctaintor
changed the title
|
|
||
| # Uncomment if you want to write the completion scripts for bash, fish, and zsh (assuming | ||
| # your executable has a command "completion" which returns a completion script) | ||
| # generate_completions_from_executable(libexec/"bin/foo", "completion", base_name: 'foo') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How many formulae does this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure but personally when I was writing a formula I didn't know that this was an option (adding completions) and I also did not know that the generate_completions_from_executable function exists. I kept these comments here to help people know that adding completions is easy.
(In my case, my CLI already supported completions – so it was as simple as knowing that it's possible and easy to have Homebrew set it up)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like 387 formulae use generate_completions_from_executable in total.
However, out of the 173 formulae that have require "language/node", only 10 use generate_completions_from_executable.
Of those 10, only cdktf uses the generate_completions_from_executable(libexec/"bin/foo") scheme described here, the other 9 use generate_completions_from_executable(bin/"foo").
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Of those 10, only cdktf uses the generate_completions_from_executable(libexec/"bin/foo") scheme described here, the other 9 use generate_completions_from_executable(bin/"foo")
Note that when you use write_env_script then you must use libexec here (using bin will result in a runtime error)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Given this is used by <10% of Node formulae: I'm not sure it's worth documenting specifically here.
| # "link" the executable `foo`, ensuring that the version of node installed by Homebrew is used | ||
| # (the created `foo` will set the ENV before exec'ing your executable) | ||
| env = { PATH: "#{HOMEBREW_PREFIX/"bin"}:$PATH" } | ||
| (bin/"foo").write_env_script "#{libexec}/bin/foo", env | ||
|
|
||
| # Uncomment if you simply want to symlink the executable – note that this means the first | ||
| # `node` on the PATH will be used (not necessarily the one Homebrew installed) | ||
| # bin.install_symlink Dir["#{libexec}/bin/*"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Which/how many formulae do this each of these ways? CC @homebrew/core for thoughts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I personally don't know when you'd ever want it this way – it's just how it was documented previously. At the very least, if the formula has a depends_on to node then I'd expect it to always use the write_env_script to force the usage of the Homebrew-installed node.
yarn will use the first node on the path but I'd imagine this is an outlier (and it is also not calling bin.install_symlink – but it is not trying to always use homebrew's node)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking at the 173 formulae with require "language/node":
5 use write_env_script, although only 3 use it in the exact way suggested here:
protoc-gen-grpc-web- This doesn't actually use
system "npm", "install", *Language::Node.std_npm_install_args(libexec)so maybe it shouldn't count
- This doesn't actually use
mongoshcode-serverbcoinemscripten- This is another case where the formula is much more complex than the sample here os it probably shouldn't be included
On the other hand, there are 155 formulae that use bin.install_symlink and 145 of those use bin.install_symlink Dir[libexec/"foo"]. So, the original way this is written seems to be by far the most prevalent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @Rylan12!
On the other hand, there are 155 formulae that use
bin.install_symlinkand 145 of those usebin.install_symlink Dir[libexec/"foo"]. So, the original way this is written seems to be by far the most prevalent.
Given the prevalence here: I think this may be worth opening a Homebrew/core issue to discuss if we want to migrate the approach here. I don't think it makes sense to have the documentation recommend the opposite of what most formulae are doing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I opened it here – Homebrew/homebrew-core#176257 – apologies if that was not the way to do it.
|
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. |
The existing example uses a symlink which means that whatever
nodeis first in the PATH will be used. This can mean that a Homebrew-installed nodejs executable may not work reliably (since it may execute with a different version of node)This PR changes it so that using the Homebrew-installed
nodewill be used. It also includes common other options (like shell completion) as well as the old symlink solution.brew stylewith your changes locally?brew typecheckwith your changes locally?brew testswith your changes locally?