add some ADRs with the start of a Roc API for RBT #17
Conversation
|
hey @rtfeldman I've redone this after #18 merged. Quite a few changes here. Would you mind re-reviewing? |
| It works just fine, and removes the need to specify outputs up front. | ||
|
|
||
| - [ ] Should we allow specifying directories as outputs? | ||
| Feels globby, so it might have some of the same concerns as globs in inputs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's not at first - can always revisit later!
|
|
||
| - [ ] Should we require output files be written to a special directory instead? | ||
| Nix does this with `$out`. | ||
| It works just fine, and removes the need to specify outputs up front. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the idea here that we set up file watching on that directory and detect what the output files are that way?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's just a differently-flavored opt-in mechanism for outputs. We don't need to (and it would require us to scan the FS under that directory anyway so it's maybe not for us!)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(We talked about this in realtime and concluded we shouldn't do it.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sync talk: don't do it, folks. Remove the TODO
Co-authored-by: Richard Feldman <oss@rtfeldman.com>
| tools: [ openapiGenerator ] | ||
| command: exec "openapi-generator-cli" [ "generate", "-i", "spec.json", "-o", "api-client", "-t", "elm" ], | ||
| outputs: [ "api-client" ], | ||
| persistAt: [ "/src/api-client" ], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| persistAt: [ "/src/api-client" ], | |
| persistAt: [ "src/api-client" ], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we should distinguish between these, actually! / should be the root of the project, not the root of the FS.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm, that would surprise me if I were writing this!
Like if I pasted in a hardcoded path while trying something out locally - say, /Users/rtfeldman/whatever - I think I'd be confused if it told me it couldn't find a file at that path relative to the current directory! I suspect my first instinct would be to file a bug report.
Supporting absolute paths does seem like it would indeed be a mistake though - what if we gave a helpful error message if you try to use one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
mm… that does make sense. Thanks, I appreciate how you're always thinking about the early experience of using tools we build!
Maybe the rule is "relative paths, always relative to the directory containing the build file." That could get annoying, though, if you've got a bunch of Roc files in a monorepo setup and want to require something (a library, maybe) across different folders. So then, maybe it's relative to the root build file? But that could get annoying for long paths.
Helpful error message does make sense, though.
this is already a lot and I still don't feel like it answers all the questions I'd want resolved! I'd love feedback from anyone, especially on the questions marked by checkboxes in the document.