-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 519
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
Remove debug_info option when no_debug_info option set #1653
Remove debug_info option when no_debug_info option set #1653
Conversation
All of the following options will be removed when no_debug_info option set encrypt_debug_info {debug_info, {Backend, Data}} {debug_info_key, KeyString} {debug_info_key, {Mode, KeyString}}
I'm not quite sure why you would add |
Using rebar3 to create a foo release with the default setting, run I want to remove the
then run The only way to remove the |
Just walk through the following lines,
we can see that |
Since |
Yes, just remove But what's the point of the |
The |
To be clear, I'm not against the patch, but it would at least need to keep tests working. |
From the link https://travis-ci.org/erlang/rebar3/jobs/295167011:
It seems like the failed test is caused by the function In my local env, the I can not have any idea why the test failed on travis-ci. So sorry. |
I'll try to look into it today then. That's odd. |
So I have figured why tests explode... Currently the behaviour is that:
The current rebar3's test suites depend on the later: we publish in the default profile without debug_info to keep the size of the executables small. We then use profile options to turn debug_info on for dialyzer or Common Test (and By modifying the feature the way this PR does it, when no_debug_info is used in the default profile, then follow-up profiles cannot ever enable it either. This PR just happens to reverse the problem you experienced, and in doing so, breaks rebar3's test suite itself. I need to think of what could be a good way to fix this to work well with profiles. So far I think the best would work by honoring whichever is the first found between |
@ferd , thanks! Sorry for this PR is not good enough to cover the case you figured out. :-( |
It's fine anyway. I think there's a good way forward from here anyway. I'll try to open up an alternative PR that you can try to see if it works well for you. |
Attempt at #1656 |
This PR has been superseded by PR #1656. Close it. |
No description provided.