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

Feature request: assume type: exitcode-stdio-1.0 by default #7459

Closed
Bodigrim opened this issue Jun 27, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #8115
Closed

Feature request: assume type: exitcode-stdio-1.0 by default #7459

Bodigrim opened this issue Jun 27, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #8115

Comments

@Bodigrim
Copy link
Collaborator

Test and benchmark components have a required field type.

For tests there are two possible values: either type: exitcode-stdio-1.0 or type: detailed-0.9. We are fortunate enough to have nice testing frameworks, so developers rarely resort to detailed-0.9 (there are only 50 Hackage packages, mostly old ones).

For benchmarks there is actually only one possible value: type: exitcode-stdio-1.0 - but the field is nevertheless required! This is just a nonsensical friction, which means that I cannot change benchmark to executable or vice versa without touching other lines.

I suggest we assume type: exitcode-stdio-1.0 by default, so that this field is no longer required.

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Jun 28, 2021

I agree. Unless anybody objects, let's do it (in both places).

@robx
Copy link
Collaborator

robx commented Jan 29, 2022

Could detailed-0.9 even be deprecated in some form? Not necessarily with the plan to remove backwards-compatibility, but e.g. not documenting it as an equal alternative.

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Jan 29, 2022

Could detailed-0.9 even be deprecated in some form? Not necessarily with the plan to remove backwards-compatibility, but e.g. not documenting it as an equal alternative.

Yes, that's very much needed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants