Skip to content
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

Dry build with stack, to test that yaml files are valid #512

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

phadej
Copy link
Contributor

@phadej phadej commented May 13, 2016

  • stack.yaml seemed to be broken
  • GHC-8.0 situation is a bit sad atm, as hvr's launchpad get updates once in a while. (would work with --skip-ghc-check, but not /that/ important atm I guess?)

@phadej phadej force-pushed the stack-in-travis branch 2 times, most recently from 09d8ee9 to 8bf2f80 Compare May 13, 2016 10:25
@phadej phadej force-pushed the stack-in-travis branch from 8bf2f80 to 8e5f501 Compare May 13, 2016 11:00
@jkarni
Copy link
Member

jkarni commented May 13, 2016

Some overlap with #508 .

For --dry-run, will stack try to install a different GHC?

@phadej
Copy link
Contributor Author

phadej commented May 13, 2016

@jkarni, no, stack won't install anything. It only downloads its own copy of Hackage, but that is cached, and updated only when a package version aren't found in the index.

@soenkehahn
Copy link
Contributor

stack test doesn't work on current master, which this added check fails to detect. My guess is that test dependencies are ignored.

And I still wonder whether it would be better to have a script that runs stack test for every stack file that we can run manually. Instead of putting this into the travis file. In the interest of keeping the CI simpler.

@soenkehahn
Copy link
Contributor

We now have a scripts/test-stack.sh script that tests all the included stack files. It's not executed as part of the CI.

I would prefer to not merge this PR in the interest of keeping the CI simpler. If you want to make absolutely sure, that the stack files work, you have to call the above-mentioned script anyways. (I'm saying, this PR only catches a subset of possible problems and I don't think it's worth the added complexity.)

I would consider switching the whole CI over to stack though. I'll open another issue for that.

@jkarni
Copy link
Member

jkarni commented Aug 15, 2016

See also #568 . If that is merged, this should probably be closed.

@soenkehahn
Copy link
Contributor

#568 is merged, closing.

@soenkehahn soenkehahn closed this Aug 17, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants