forks/apenwarr-redo
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

minimal/do: redo vs redo-ifchange, and fix empty target handling.

Browse source 
We previously assumed that redo and redo-ifchange are the same in
minimal/do's design, because it rebuilds all targets on every run, and
so there's no reason to ever build the same target more than once.

Unfortunately that's incorrect: if you run 'redo x' from two points in
a single run (or even twice in the same .do file), we expect x to be
built twice.  If you wanted redo to decide whether to build it the
second time, you should have used redo-ifchange.

t/102-empty/touchtest was trying to test for this.  However, a
second bug in minimal/do made the test pass anyway.  minimal/do would
*always* rebuild any target x that produced no output, not caring
whether it had tried to build before, whether you used redo or
redo-ifchange.  And while we tested that redo would redo a file that
had been deleted, we didn't ensure that it would redo a file that was
*not* deleted, nor that redo-ifchange would *not* redo that file.

Fix both bugs in minimal/do, and make t/102-empty/touchtest cover the
missing cases.
This commit is contained in:
Avery Pennarun 2018-10-17 01:42:32 -04:00
commit f345eae290
3 changed files with 32 additions and 3 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

3
minimal/do
View file

@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ dirname()
_dirsplit "$0"
export REDO=$(cd "${dir:-.}" && echo "$PWD/$base")
if [ "$base" = "redo-ifchange" ]; then ifchange=1; else ifchange=; fi
DO_TOP=
if [ -z "$DO_BUILT" ]; then
@ -107,7 +108,7 @@ _run_dofile()
_do()
{
local dir="$1" target="$2" tmp="$3"
if [ ! -e "$target" ] || [ -d "$target" -a ! -e "$target.did" ]; then
if [ -z "$ifchange" ] || ( [ ! -e "$target" -o -d "$target" ] && [ ! -e "$target.did" ] ); then
printf '%sdo %s%s%s%s\n' \
"$green" "$DO_DEPTH" "$bold" "$dir$target" "$plain" >&2
echo "$PWD/$target" >>"$DO_BUILT"