-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 52
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
Fix Makefile rules for integration tests #154
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
not a strong-strong-strong opinion... but I'd really really really prefer if we'd follow ci
api if there is no strong reason to ignore it.
Makefile
Outdated
@@ -19,6 +19,9 @@ GOTEST_INTEGRATION = $(GOTEST_BASE) -tags="forceposix integration" | |||
|
|||
OS := $(shell uname) | |||
|
|||
bin-clean: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In order to follow ci
api, I think we should override ci/Makefile.main::clean
target, instead of using a new one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
then it complains about overriding (warning). If everybody prefers that, I'm okay to change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, and imo the overriding warning is something expected when working with Make. And it's also a good way to notify that the used clean
is different from the common one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also prefer using clean
.
Would it be possible to change |
@carlosms taking into account that src-d/ci#98 is open for more than 4 months - no. |
Still, if it makes sense to include the fix in src-d/ci, we could submit a PR there, and while we wait for it to be merged override |
Fix #152 Go clean doesn't work with go modules and it doesn't make much sense to run it when modules are used. Ref: golang/go#31002 Because sourced-ce uses go modules for dependency resolution it is expected that GO111MODULE is enabled. This commit removes running `go clean` and executes `rm` only. Signed-off-by: Maxim Sukharev <[email protected]>
repushed with override. @carlosms I don't see any sense in creating PRs that aren't geting merged ever. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, many thanks for considering my suggestions.
@dpordomingo overriding definitely makes sense. I just don't like warnings 😅 |
Fix #152
Go clean doesn't work with go modules and it doesn't make much sense to
run it when modules are used.
Ref: golang/go#31002
Because sourced-ce uses go modules for dependency resolution it is
expected that GO111MODULE is enabled.
This commit removes running
go clean
and executesrm
only.Signed-off-by: Maxim Sukharev [email protected]