Warn user if they forgot commands section

[pytoxbot]

• Bitbucket: https://bitbucket.org/hpk42/tox/issue/316
• Originally reported by: @The-Compiler
• Originally created at: 2016-02-25T11:55:21.179

When one forgets to add commands = ... to tox.ini, this is most likely a mistake - however, tox happily runs nothing and tells us the commands succeeded.

I think instead it should output a warning, similar to the yellow "no tests ran" which pytest does.

[obestwalter]

@The-Compiler I think this is a good idea to add that. I changed the name of the issue to reflect what should happen rather then what not happens.

[The-Compiler]

Cool - thanks for all the issue triaging you're doing lately, it's much appreciated! 😄

[vlcinsky]

The ticket talks about WARNing, but the modification is reporting an ERROR and exits with status code 1.

I am often using tox.ini as builder for virtual envs and in those cases I often do not expect any command to be run.

The ERROR message is thus confusing. My first impression was, that the build of virtualenv failed what was not true.

Consider changing this warning only and keep the empty command section as acceptable scenario not reported as a failure.

[obestwalter]

I am often using tox.ini as builder for virtual envs and in those cases I often do not expect any command to be run.

@vlcinsky I agree the commands section must not be mandatory. The issue explicitly states also that we want to warn the user and not throw an error. #407 needs a bit of work as @rogalski already said - I would suggest to print an informative warning about the missing commands section but not throw an error.

[vlcinsky]

@obestwalter so we agree.

Using tox v 2.5.0 I get the ERROR reported if command is empty. I wonder, if this issue shall be reopen or I shall file a new one.

[obestwalter]

Let's reopen this. As this made it into a release already I am not sure how to proceed. Let's hear some more opinions about this ...

[obestwalter]

I just had a look in the docs and there are no mandatory settings in the testenv section. It says explicitly: "Complete list of settings that you can put into testenv* sections:" (emphasis by me). So we should consider this a bug that we now get an error if no commands entry is present.

I also think that it is a valid use case to use tox to only create a virtualenv without executing any commands - I even seem to remember that this is mentioned in the docs somewhere.

[vlcinsky]

@obestwalter yes, the page https://tox.readthedocs.io/en/latest/example/devenv.html states:

Tox can be used for just preparing different virtual environments required by a project.

and provides Basic and Advanced example for it. (even showing an option to use empty command = statement.)

[obestwalter]

FWIW it still works if you add an empty command section like in the example, but I still think that it should be possible to leave it out completely if I don't need it.

[obestwalter]

Ehh sorry - no it doesn't ... I had 2.4.1 installed from a test before. There it works with an empty command section. In 2.5.0 it throws an error, so we have a mismatch between documentation and behaviour now.

A regression we have here indeed.

[obestwalter]

The actual aim of this issue was achieved, but a bit overreached by throwing an error now, which we'll track here - so closing this one.

[obestwalter]

Reopening this as we had to revert this change, because instead of the suggested warning a missing/empty commands section caused an error, which is not what we want.

[obestwalter]

Thinking about it, I am not even sure anymore if we should warn the user, because having no commands is a perfectly valid use case, which is even documented.

So if somebody wants to have another go at this, I would suggest we even dial it down to informing the user that there are no commands to be used, instead of warning them, when this might exactly be what they want.

Maybe it is not even worth the fuss, so we might as well close this a wontfix?

[vlcinsky]

I would be perfectly happy with wontfix.
Informing the user instead of warning or error message is also good solution (I would prefer the wontfix).

[obestwalter]

@vlcinsky - thanks. Sometimes the best features are the ones that are not implemented :)

[vlcinsky]

@obestwalter you made my day.

Btw: ability to remove already introduced feature requires real self-confidence. When ego(s) start(s) screaming "keep my footprint there, it's mine", only people who value usability over footprints have clear answer. (at the same time thanks @The-Compiler for bringing ideas - it counts and contributes too).

[The-Compiler]

I don't even remember why I opened this issue, so I'm fine with that 😆

[obestwalter]

Oh you opened this @The-Compiler - sorry for muddling this up - I am glad that the result is correct even if it was based on wrong assumptions :)