Skip to content
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

Re-add --batchinstall and fix dep issues #1053

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 16, 2019

Conversation

Morganamilo
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@Jguer
Copy link
Owner

Jguer commented Oct 10, 2019

Can you just point me out what was the issue with the deps?

@Jguer Jguer added Status: In Progress Being implemented/fixed Type: Enhancement labels Oct 10, 2019
@Morganamilo
Copy link
Contributor Author

DepOrder is built from DepPool. And as it builds it drains the dep pool. Meaning that dp.repo will be empty. It was literally just a typo of dp instead of do when looping over repo packages.

@Jguer
Copy link
Owner

Jguer commented Oct 11, 2019

Fair enough, happens.

What would you say are the biggest challenges in extracting it to its own package so it doesn't depend on yay runtime information?
I would like to add some unit tests of the type: We run a mock AUR server. We feed X package names, we expect to get these X installed as exp and Y installed as deps to prevent this type of regression

@Jguer
Copy link
Owner

Jguer commented Oct 14, 2019

Also missing is manpages and completion data for this

@Morganamilo
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fair enough, happens.

What would you say are the biggest challenges in extracting it to its own package so it doesn't depend on yay runtime information?
I would like to add some unit tests of the type: We run a mock AUR server. We feed X package names, we expect to get these X installed as exp and Y installed as deps to prevent this type of regression

I wouldn't really say there's any challenges, just a lot to write.

@Jguer
Copy link
Owner

Jguer commented Oct 16, 2019

I know what you mean, just setting up all of the CI/"CD" pipeline has been hammering away at everything.

I would leave this PR unmerged until pacman 5.2 has passed (which I hope is soon). Meanwhile I've set go-alpm to check and build when pacman enters testing and also to compile against pacman-git once a week and on branches named pacman*. I'll set up the same but maybe a bit more lax on yay.

@Jguer
Copy link
Owner

Jguer commented Oct 16, 2019

What did I say an hour ago 🤣 ?
If I make a release this week I'll make it without #1053

@Morganamilo
Copy link
Contributor Author

My message was the last time I checked the thread, whoops.

@Morganamilo
Copy link
Contributor Author

I just don't want to deal with the extra conflicts really.

@Jguer
Copy link
Owner

Jguer commented Oct 16, 2019

Fine by me, no issue. I was planning on testing automatic releasing on master branch on these last commits but I'll have to implement release-branch releasing before, just moves the cycle a bit back.

@Jguer Jguer added Status: Resolved Issue or question has been answered or fixed successfully and removed Status: In Progress Being implemented/fixed Status: Missing documentation labels Oct 21, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Resolved Issue or question has been answered or fixed successfully Type: Enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants