Skip to content

FileTask#out_of_date? calls depended FileTask#out_of_date? for execution #183

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

#

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 31, 2017
Merged

FileTask#out_of_date? calls depended FileTask#out_of_date? for execution #183

merged 6 commits into from
Jan 31, 2017

Conversation

aycabta
Copy link
Member

@aycabta aycabta commented Dec 28, 2016

This fixes #92 what says below:

The problem seems to stem from the fact that the internal function out_of_date? (in file_task.rb) does not take into account when a file should have updated its timestamp (but didn't, because this is a dry-run).

I think so. In this Pull Request, FileTask#out_of_date? calls dependency FileTask's #out_of_date? via FileTask#needed?.

olleolleolle
olleolleolle reviewed Dec 29, 2016
View reviewed changes
lib/rake/file_task.rb
@@ -29,7 +29,14 @@ def timestamp

# Are there any prerequisites with a later time than the given time stamp?
def out_of_date?(stamp)
@prerequisites.any? { |n| application[n, @scope].timestamp > stamp }
@prerequisites.any? { |p|
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

p is a name which is in Ruby as Kernel#p. Can you find a good replacement name for the block parameter?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, I made a silly mistake. It's as you says. I added a commit 679ccb8.

@aycabta aycabta mentioned this pull request Dec 29, 2016
Closed
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jan 6, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.01%) to 96.574% when pulling 0c712c0 on aycabta:file-dryrun-bug-92 into bc5765f on ruby:master.

@aycabta aycabta force-pushed the file-dryrun-bug-92 branch from 0c712c0 to ec7dc8f Compare January 23, 2017 14:10
@aycabta aycabta force-pushed the file-dryrun-bug-92 branch from ec7dc8f to 7be2c78 Compare January 23, 2017 14:18
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jan 23, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.01%) to 96.574% when pulling ec7dc8f on aycabta:file-dryrun-bug-92 into bc5765f on ruby:master.

1 similar comment
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jan 23, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.01%) to 96.574% when pulling ec7dc8f on aycabta:file-dryrun-bug-92 into bc5765f on ruby:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jan 23, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.01%) to 96.574% when pulling 7be2c78 on aycabta:file-dryrun-bug-92 into bc5765f on ruby:master.

olleolleolle
olleolleolle reviewed Jan 23, 2017
View reviewed changes
test/test_rake_functional.rb
rake "-n"
assert_equal(%w{fileA fileB fileC default}, dryrun_tasks)
rake
sleep 1 # for stride seconds surely for timestamp
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just a passer-by reading this comment. I'm confused by it. Can you reword it, to make it less ambiguous?

What I believe it wants to say: Ensure the timestamp is on a new second.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, I added a commit to fix the comment!

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jan 24, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.01%) to 96.574% when pulling 2346bc8 on aycabta:file-dryrun-bug-92 into bc5765f on ruby:master.

@hsbt hsbt merged commit 5ba97af into ruby:master Jan 31, 2017
@aycabta aycabta deleted the file-dryrun-bug-92 branch February 5, 2017 07:34
@aycabta aycabta mentioned this pull request Oct 4, 2017
Merged
grzuy added a commit to grzuy/rake that referenced this pull request Feb 7, 2018
@grzuy
Revert "Merge pull request ruby#183 from aycabta/file-dryrun-bug-92"
efe3f02 
This reverts commit 5ba97af, reversing
changes made to bc5765f.

Fixes ruby#246
@grzuy grzuy mentioned this pull request Feb 7, 2018
Closed
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Reviewers

@olleolleolle olleolleolle olleolleolle left review comments

@hsbt hsbt hsbt approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Rake -n does not mark dependents for Execution
4 participants
@aycabta @coveralls @olleolleolle @hsbt