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

Attempt to avoid Haddock errors, make them nonfatal anyway #5459

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 27, 2018

Conversation

typedrat
Copy link
Collaborator

Closes #5232.

Please include the following checklist in your PR:

  • Patches conform to the coding conventions.
  • Any changes that could be relevant to users have been recorded in the changelog.
  • The documentation has been updated, if necessary.

@23Skidoo
Copy link
Member

Nice, let's get this into 2.4.

Copy link
Member

@23Skidoo 23Skidoo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks OK.

@@ -969,6 +969,15 @@ dieOnBuildFailures verbosity plan buildOutcomes
maybeToList (InstallPlan.lookup plan pkgid)
]

fail'
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's call this helper dieIfNotHaddockFailure or something similar.

Haddock errors aren't fatal any more, but Cabal now knows not to invoke Haddock when there is no input for it to process.
@isovector
Copy link
Contributor

This seems to have broken #5977. Which is that you really do want haddock errors to be fatal when running cabal v2-haddock! I'm happy to put in some engineering effort here, but I don't know where to get started on this.

@phadej phadej mentioned this pull request Jul 7, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
No open projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

cabal new-build treats haddock failures fatally
3 participants