-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 644
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
Add script to identify backends not part of the pants distribution. #20548
Conversation
Nice! Is this something we can execute as a Pants test, so it gets run in CI automatically? One idea: a codegen target that exposes the output of |
Interesting idea to have this as a test. I'll look into it! |
This is a great idea, and having it run as a test would be good. |
Related issues and discussions: * #20548 * https://pantsbuild.slack.com/archives/C0D7TNJHL/p1708092220006959
Related issues and discussions: * #20548 * https://pantsbuild.slack.com/archives/C0D7TNJHL/p1708092220006959
…20556) Related issues and discussions: * #20548 * https://pantsbuild.slack.com/archives/C0D7TNJHL/p1708092220006959 Co-authored-by: Krishnan Chandra <[email protected]>
My idea of a peek goal target is potentially too hard in the immediate term (although might be nice for users too)... an alternative that lets us start seeing the benefit sooner could be a test that runs outside the sandbox (that is, https://www.pantsbuild.org/2.19/reference/targets/python_test#run_goal_use_sandbox), and so can do things like directly globbing the filesystem for |
I have this working, down to that I failed to run |
I know we ideally want to run this in CI, but any reason not to land the script as is? |
No objections in 3 months; landing! |
These mistakes are done over and over again, and goes undetected for too long.
As a follow up, we could add a check mode and run during CI to catch early. For now, it's merely a conveniency that can be run manually.
Example output (pre #20529):