-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.9k
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
audit: fix "version should not decrease" check. #1493
audit: fix "version should not decrease" check. #1493
Conversation
|
Crash bug with dbus:
|
Fix the "version should not decrease" check so it correctly handles `version_scheme`s. Fixes #1489.
Fixed those issues but |
Maybe not worse, but it did change the output
|
Yeh, it adds "stable" on to be clear which spec it's referring to. I think that's probably better in figuring out what's happened. |
Should this really close #1489 if the dbus problem is still unfixed? |
next if spec_attribute_map.nil? || spec_attribute_map.empty? | ||
|
||
attributes_for_version = spec_attribute_map[formula.version] | ||
next if attributes_for_version.nil? || attributes_for_version.empty? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
any way to avoid the repetitiveness of 671-672 and 674-675?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not really, nope.
end | ||
|
||
return if formula.revision.zero? | ||
if formula.stable | ||
revision_map = attributes_map[:revision] | ||
revision_map = attributes_map[:revision][:stable] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can attributes_map[:revision] be nil?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No.
Yes because the issue described in the title/body has been addressed: this is now considering |
Arguably we should consider bumping |
To be clear though: I'm definitely 👍 on having a new issue describing how we do want this to behave in the |
Since version_scheme didn't exist then, and the too new one was rolled back minutes later, it seems goofy to have to slap a version scheme on it at this point, and an abuse of what that DSL was for. |
brew tests
with your changes locally?Fix the "version should not decrease" check so it correctly handles
version_scheme
s.CC @ilovezfs @zmwangx
Fixes #1489.