Allow Revise to be loaded in -e/E arguments

[mortenpi]

@timholy Did you mean like this?

I have been running Revise with essentially this patch (sans the Base.isinteractive check) for quite a while now and everything has been working fine.

At some point, I did see an issue when I would get some warnings with scripts (i.e. running julia script.jl). I don't remember exactly, but I think it was about stealing the REPL when there isn't one when I had using Revise in the startup file. But I wasn't able to reproduce that anymore. And hopefully the Base.isinteractive check will get around that?

As far as I can tell, this definitely fixes #202, i.e. julia -i -e 'using Revise; includet("script.jl")' now works as expected.

[mortenpi]

Also, with this patch, I think the recommended way to load Revise in the startup.jl file would become just using Revise. If I have this

atreplinit() do repl
    try
        @eval using Revise
        @async Revise.wait_steal_repl_backend()
    catch
    end
end

then the following happens

$ julia -i -e'includet("foo.jl")'
ERROR: UndefVarError: includet not defined
Stacktrace:
 [1] top-level scope at none:1

But if you just have using Revise, then julia -i -e'includet("foo.jl")' works fine. And the definitions in foo.jl will be kept up to date in the REPL session.

[mortenpi]

Ah, the warning showed up. It was the same one that @mlhetland mentioned in #202 (comment). I had using Revise in startup.jl and there was some compilation necessary, so this happened:

$ julia -i --project analysis/v4.jl
[ Info: Recompiling stale cache file /home/mortenpi/.julia/compiled/v1.2/DataFrames/AR9oZ.ji for DataFrames [a93c6f00-e57d-5684-b7b6-d8193f3e46c0]
┌ Warning: REPL initialization failed, Revise is not in automatic mode. Call `revise()` manually.
└ @ Revise ~/.julia/dev/Revise/src/Revise.jl:986

[timholy]

Can we wrap this in an atreplinit?That might solve the "how long a delay?" issue.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #349 into master will decrease coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 50%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #349      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   76.88%   76.83%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          11       11              
  Lines        1168     1170       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits          898      899       +1     
- Misses        270      271       +1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/Revise.jl	72.24% <50%> (-0.11%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update bd7d161...fcc2129. Read the comment docs.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #349 into master will decrease coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 50%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #349      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   76.88%   76.83%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          11       11              
  Lines        1168     1170       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits          898      899       +1     
- Misses        270      271       +1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/Revise.jl	72.24% <50%> (-0.11%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update bd7d161...fcc2129. Read the comment docs.

[mortenpi]

Ok, I've tested this wrapped version and it seems to work great. The warning is gone and loading Revise in either startup.jl or -e/E still works.

Are there any tests that should/could be added for this?

[timholy]

Are there any tests that should/could be added for this?

Yes please. I suspect the best approach would be in the .travis.yml file. You'll note there are already some tests with different startup options, this would be kind of the same thing.

I haven't yet played with this myself, but any preliminary thoughts about whether this affects people who have been adding the recommended lines to their startup.jl files?