opam pin fails adding new or multiple packages when --no-action is present

[kit-ty-kate]

For now the opam pin command used with the --no-action/-n argument fails if the package pinned is new or if we try to add multiple packages from a single directory.
This behaviour does not really matches the intended purpose of --no-action, namely:

Just record the new pinning status, and don't prompt for
(re)installation or removal of affected packages.

Moreover the default behaviour in opam 1.2.2 in regards to adding new package was to add them anyway. --no-action didn't really play any role there but imho for scripts it is important to keep this behaviour and to be able to pin packages without installing them.

[AltGr]

Could you give details on the interaction you are expecting ? By 'new', do you mean a package without metadata ?

This works:

% cat >opam
opam-version: "2.0"  
version: "test"
build: "false"
% opam pin -n .
Package foo does not exist, create as a NEW package ? [Y/n] y
[foo.~dev] synchronised from file:///tmp/foo
[WARNING] Failed checks on foo package definition from source at file:///tmp/foo:
    error 23: Missing field 'maintainer'
    error 25: Missing field 'authors'
    error 35: Missing field 'homepage'
  warning 36: Missing field 'bug-reports'
foo is now pinned to file:///tmp/foo (version test)

[AltGr]

@kit-ty-kate Do you have any details on this ? I confirm that you are expecting the right thing from -n

[kit-ty-kate]

Oh sorry I missed your first ping. Hum, well your example above doesn't work if you are using docker for instance. Of course if we add -y to the pin command it works but my point being that the behaviour is different between pining an existing package and pinning a new (that doesn't exist yet in the list of packages) or multiple packages because opam first asks questions like "do you want to continue" here.

[AltGr]

Hmm, maybe it's the wording that is wrong then. The message should be understood as "don't prompt for (re)installation or removal of affected packages", not "don't prompt for (re)installation or removal of affected packages".

The important part is that it won't run the installation actions, not the fact that it will prompt (for other reasons). Was that the unclear part, and should we just clarify the wording, or do you think more is needed ?

[rjbou]

ping @kit-ty-kate

[dra27]

Would this be better, getting rid of the word "prompt" completely?

Only record the new pinning status; affected packages will
not be (re)installed or removed.