Mutliple invokation of the same task. #167

Closed
sophacles opened this Issue Aug 18, 2014 · 2 comments

Projects

None yet

2 participants

@sophacles

So it seems that when I do:

inv task1 --foo=arg1 task2

everything works exactly as expected.

But when I do:

inv task1 --foo=arg1 task1 --foo=arg2 task2

I get the error:

No idea what 'arg2' is!

There is no explicit mention in the docs that I can find about repeating a task on the command line. If it has been decided to disallow this, docs should be updated. If the behavior is undefined, I vote that allowing repeated tasks is a good idea for a lot of things. For instance my uwsgi deploy code for 3 different sub-projects is a only a few command line parameters of difference. I don't like having to do multiple commands or:

inv proj1 --path=place1 proj2 --path=place2 proj3 --path=place3

when I could do:

inv proj --name=p1 --path=place1 proj --name=p2 --path=place2 proj --name=p3 --path=place3

Particularly when I add proj4 as yet another task stub function.

@bitprophet
Member

Yea this feels like a bug to me, it may be a too-naive implementation detail in the parser.

@bitprophet bitprophet added this to the 0.8.3 milestone Aug 25, 2014
@bitprophet bitprophet added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 26, 2014
@bitprophet bitprophet Some failing tests re #167 d8bf0ed
@bitprophet
Member

Yea this is due to using a dict (Lexicon) in the Parser class. I think the problem is somewhere in how the parser.Contexts within that dict get mutated and handed into the ParseResult object (which is list-like, so at that point we shouldn't care about multiple 'copies' of a Context).

EDIT: Yup it was actually as easy as ensuring we copy.deepcopy when updating the parser's "current context" - which we did already do for the initial starting context (which is usually the core options) but were not doing here. Adding that one change fixes the 3 failing tests I'd added.

@bitprophet bitprophet added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 26, 2014
@bitprophet bitprophet Changelog re #167 06cfa89
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment