You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
let mintFilePackage = mintfile.package(for: package.repo){
Causing commands like: mint run --no-install -m incorrect/path packageNameToRun
to fail because the newest version of the package was not found.
The bootstrap was done earlier with the correct Mintfile path.
Or commands like: mint run -m incorrect/path packageNameToRun
to install the undesired newest version of the specified package and run with it ❗
Seems like the fix is not as easy as:
letmintfile=tryMintfile(path: mintFilePath)
if let mintFilePackage = mintfile.package(for: package.repo){
because then 6 tests fail, I guess in some contexts it is expecting to run without Mintfile, but I don't know the internal assumptions of this project.
Anyway, surely when you specify Mintfile explicitly via -m option then it must fail if that file does not exist.
Regardless of whether it is the default path specified -m Mintfile or a custom one.
In the current state, it leads to confusion and hard-to-understand behaviours.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yes agree if the Mintfile is explicit then it should fail if not found.
In other cases Mint was designed to run packages without a Mintfile at all (that functionality came before the Mintfile even existed). I can understand if that seems like odd behaviour in certain cases.
This check is hiding the error when the Mintfile does not exists:
Mint/Sources/MintKit/Mint.swift
Lines 124 to 126 in fdff1b5
Causing commands like:
mint run --no-install -m incorrect/path packageNameToRun
to fail because the newest version of the package was not found.
The bootstrap was done earlier with the correct Mintfile path.
Or commands like:
mint run -m incorrect/path packageNameToRun
to install the undesired newest version of the specified package and run with it ❗
Seems like the fix is not as easy as:
because then 6 tests fail, I guess in some contexts it is expecting to run without Mintfile, but I don't know the internal assumptions of this project.
Anyway, surely when you specify Mintfile explicitly via
-m
option then it must fail if that file does not exist.Regardless of whether it is the default path specified
-m Mintfile
or a custom one.In the current state, it leads to confusion and hard-to-understand behaviours.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: