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

[Bug] Missing sh script for Netlify universe package #1512

Closed
slumbering opened this issue Jan 27, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #1526
Closed

[Bug] Missing sh script for Netlify universe package #1512

slumbering opened this issue Jan 27, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #1526
Labels
kind/bug Something isn't working

Comments

@slumbering
Copy link
Contributor

Dagger version : dagger 0.2.0-alpha.2

When using dagger init the Netlify universe package has a missing deploy.sh file which make the package unusable.

@slumbering slumbering added kind/bug Something isn't working area/universe labels Jan 27, 2022
@grouville
Copy link
Member

Reversing with @slumbering:

  • It seems that we do not add the external scripts when vendoring universe.dagger.io. A dagger init copies the proper library, but without the imported scripts
  • This also shows a weakness on our testing methodology: we test on the local packages only. We should also add tests using the vendored packages

@aluzzardi aluzzardi added this to the next milestone Jan 27, 2022
@aluzzardi
Copy link
Member

It seems that we do not add the external scripts when vendoring universe.dagger.io. A dagger init copies the proper library, but without the imported scripts

Indeed -- the problem lies in our go:embed statement which only includes .cue files:

//go:embed */**/*.cue */**/**/*.cue

We should change this to include the entire directory.

This also shows a weakness on our testing methodology: we test on the local packages only. We should also add tests using the vendored packages

Yes. Vendoring is going to change dramatically with modules, so I don't think it's worth investing much time in this right now.

@slumbering
Copy link
Contributor Author

@aluzzardi : should we have an array of authorized extension instead of include the entire directory ?

@slumbering slumbering linked a pull request Jan 28, 2022 that will close this issue
@aluzzardi
Copy link
Member

@aluzzardi : should we have an array of authorized extension instead of include the entire directory ?

No we should include the entire directory. go:embed will be replaced by a git clone someday, and that's going to gather all files.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants