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

jake.createExec not available in latest NPM package (10.4.5) #371

Open
antonio-malcolm opened this issue Feb 19, 2020 · 5 comments
Open

jake.createExec not available in latest NPM package (10.4.5) #371

antonio-malcolm opened this issue Feb 19, 2020 · 5 comments

Comments

@antonio-malcolm
Copy link

@antonio-malcolm antonio-malcolm commented Feb 19, 2020

This is currently an issue, on the latest NPM package (v10.4.5).
I can confirm #createExec is not assigned to jake, by:

jake.logger = utils.logger;

@antonio-malcolm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@antonio-malcolm antonio-malcolm commented Feb 19, 2020

UPDATE: Looks like it's undefined, on jake, for ALL the 10.x tags, as well as 10.3.2
I've found it on 10.3.1.

@mde

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@mde mde commented Feb 20, 2020

Curious what you're needing the createExec for. Now that we have a reasonable, synchronous way to shell out, why would you need this functionality anymore?

@antonio-malcolm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@antonio-malcolm antonio-malcolm commented Feb 20, 2020

What is replacing it?
Also, isn't that a somewhat haphazard way of going about this?

"So, folks, SURPRISE, it's a missing method, though the core logic still exists, in the utils!"
"Rewrite your logic, if you want to update, with NO deprecation notice!"

@antonio-malcolm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@antonio-malcolm antonio-malcolm commented Feb 20, 2020

If there's a new, better way, I'll jump on that, but I haven't written a new Jake project, since v8, and it would have been good, to have some notice you intended to deprecate that functionality, and had done so, without the additional confusion of leaving the stale backing code in the utils.

@antonio-malcolm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@antonio-malcolm antonio-malcolm commented Feb 20, 2020

Ok, so, I see there's this, which accomplishes what I'm doing, but, I'm not certain why it's a "better" approach, as opposed to simply "different"?

https://jakejs.com/docs-page.html#item-advanced-usage-evented-tasks

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.