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
pod install
suggests running expensive flutter build ios
when engine artifacts are missing
#72737
Comments
Hi @MaruQuarky |
@pedromassangocode I actually think this is an issue with Flutter itself. I think it should be possible to run |
Hi @maxlapides |
This is an issue on Flutter 1.25.0-8.1.pre. It is not an issue on Flutter 1.24.0-10.2.pre. |
Hi @maxlapides
You can see the logs bellow. Logs
|
The same is the problem after I upgraded to 1.25.0-8.1.pre
|
Hi @pedromassangocode Logs
|
Could anyone facing this issue please provide the steps to reproduce the issue and the output of |
Hello, I have the same problem. There should be some validation on the side of the flutter to avoid problems in this regard This bug was introduced in this pull
|
@ReniDelonzek You are right! After upgrading ruby to 2.7.1 problem's gone.
Thanks, your comment was very helpful 👍 |
@ReniDelonzek
So I think there is nothing the Flutter team can do about it! |
I cannot guarantee that the original problem is caused by the ruby version either. I got to this problem through the pull request that interfered with the function I mentioned. If necessary, the new issue can be opened for this, since by the comments I was not the only one to face this. There must be at least official documentation indicating that the ruby version must be updated (since the minimum version that the pod requires is 2.0.0) and no clear error message is indicated |
That makes sense, feel free to open a new issue for that and making sure the issue template is well filled. |
@pedromassangocode I'm sorry for the delayed response. I have steps to reproduce the original issue (which I believe is unrelated to the installed Ruby version):
|
Please make sure your sample code does not use any third-party package/plugin.
See #72737 (comment) |
@pedromassangocode It doesn't matter what the third-party package is, the important thing is that there is at least one cocoapod added to your project. This didn't used to be an issue with Flutter, but since this PR it is now an issue. Therefore, I believe there is something that the Flutter team can do. I think if this issue isn't addressed before it lands on stable, there will be more issues from others who have their CI environment set up similarly. |
Hi @maxlapides |
I understand that this is new behavior. I think that there was an oversight when developing this new behavior. The oversight is that it is now impossible to run |
@ReniDelonzek That's a different problem than the one reported, I filed #75347 to track this. Thanks! @maxlapides The behavior to move the Flutter.framework linking logic was actually introduced in https://github.com/flutter/flutter/pull/70224/files#diff-c8af58e191012b46ec91e8b663a53c9ab82f6ecfed9d8408da7013ed01b1469aR35-R36. You can read the description in that PR for all the bugs and weirdness fixed by that change. In your CI script you can run |
pod install
prior to running flutter build ios
pod install
suggests running expensive flutter build ios
when engine artifacts are missing
@jmagman Thanks so much for the |
This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. If you are still experiencing a similar issue, please open a new bug, including the output of |
Steps to reproduce the issue:
cache
directory is empty (as it would be in a fresh CI environment): rm -rf ~/flutter/bin/cachepod install
in theios
directory.Error encountered:
Note: I've masked the
/Users/{User}/
in the error message.Flutter Doctor:
Although this could be resolved by running
flutter build ios
before runningpod install
, this isn’t a great solution for some CI environments due to the reason that it significantly slows down the CI build.It seems that this change was made here: #71495. Do you have any recommendations to be able to upgrade? Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: