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

Added option to have paket restore fail on check failure #1963

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Oct 22, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@sarudak
Contributor

sarudak commented Oct 13, 2016

I removed the exception swallowing. If there's a specific exception it was meant to suppress that should be added back in. Also are there tests around this functionality? I couldn't find any related ones.

PS: Total F# noob here

@forki

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@forki

forki Oct 14, 2016

Member

cool.

Do we need the same param for install and update?

Member

forki commented Oct 14, 2016

cool.

Do we need the same param for install and update?

@sarudak

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sarudak

sarudak Oct 14, 2016

Contributor

I don't think it's necessary. The particular check that I care about doesn't happen on install or update because they always update the lock file. If there are other warning but not failing events that people would prefer to fail in certain situations then maybe but I don't know about them.

Any idea why I've got integration tests failing in travis-ci but not locally?

Contributor

sarudak commented Oct 14, 2016

I don't think it's necessary. The particular check that I care about doesn't happen on install or update because they always update the lock file. If there are other warning but not failing events that people would prefer to fail in certain situations then maybe but I don't know about them.

Any idea why I've got integration tests failing in travis-ci but not locally?

@kostrse

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kostrse

kostrse Oct 19, 2016

Contributor

This is a great flag.

Maybe give it a shorter name?
--fail-on-checks for example

Contributor

kostrse commented Oct 19, 2016

This is a great flag.

Maybe give it a shorter name?
--fail-on-checks for example

@forki

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@forki

forki Oct 19, 2016

Member

Yes that name is better. Please change it.

Am 19.10.2016 02:09 schrieb "Sergey Kostrukov" notifications@github.com:

This is a great flag.

Maybe give it a shorter name?
--fail-on-checks for example


You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#1963 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADgNHWV9ddpxOZ9-oV-72KonI_-pIzCks5q1V-dgaJpZM4KWL-Q
.

Member

forki commented Oct 19, 2016

Yes that name is better. Please change it.

Am 19.10.2016 02:09 schrieb "Sergey Kostrukov" notifications@github.com:

This is a great flag.

Maybe give it a shorter name?
--fail-on-checks for example


You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#1963 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADgNHWV9ddpxOZ9-oV-72KonI_-pIzCks5q1V-dgaJpZM4KWL-Q
.

@forki forki merged commit d3b011d into fsprojects:master Oct 22, 2016

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@forki

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@forki

forki Oct 22, 2016

Member

thx. this is now in latest alpha

Member

forki commented Oct 22, 2016

thx. this is now in latest alpha

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment