-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.9k
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
make check should not fail for release tarballs #14513
Comments
cc @gibfahn |
If we don't include the linter in the release tarball then I agree that it doesn't make sense to fail tests. I guess the better change would be to change the linter check in https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/Makefile#L915 from Is there a way to detect that it's a release tarball (rather than an eslint upgrade gone wrong)? |
@gibfahn I do not really see how development tooling is relevant to a release tarball. |
@jellelicht at the moment Line 117 in 640b206
|
Tries to achieve the same effect as nodejs#13658 without breaking source tarballs. Presumably if `tools/eslint` wasn't there at all, people would notice in the PR review! Fixes: nodejs#14513
Tries to achieve the same effect as nodejs#13658 without breaking source tarballs. Presumably if `tools/eslint` wasn't there at all, people would notice in the PR review! PR-URL: nodejs#15441 Fixes: nodejs#14513 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Tries to achieve the same effect as nodejs/node#13658 without breaking source tarballs. Presumably if `tools/eslint` wasn't there at all, people would notice in the PR review! PR-URL: nodejs/node#15441 Fixes: nodejs/node#14513 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Tries to achieve the same effect as #13658 without breaking source tarballs. Presumably if `tools/eslint` wasn't there at all, people would notice in the PR review! PR-URL: #15441 Fixes: #14513 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Tries to achieve the same effect as #13658 without breaking source tarballs. Presumably if `tools/eslint` wasn't there at all, people would notice in the PR review! PR-URL: #15441 Fixes: #14513 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Tries to achieve the same effect as #13658 without breaking source tarballs. Presumably if `tools/eslint` wasn't there at all, people would notice in the PR review! PR-URL: #15441 Fixes: #14513 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
PR #13658 introduced a hard-failing linter in case the linter dependencies are not included.
This happens to be the case for at least release 8.2.1, and as part of normal packaging procedures we run
make check
to verify that everything still works as it should. It seems reasonable to expectmake check
to only fail if there are problems with the code.A linter not being available in the release tarball is IMHO not a reason for the included tests to fail.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: