Skip to content
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

Give output runner an option to exit early #260

Closed
DavidANeil opened this issue May 23, 2019 · 3 comments
Closed

Give output runner an option to exit early #260

DavidANeil opened this issue May 23, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@DavidANeil
Copy link
Contributor

DavidANeil commented May 23, 2019

Sometimes the build will output 100+ errors but the fix for the first will fix all 100+ of them.
Currently with output_runner, the fix will be applied from the first error, and then for all of the other errors the tool may try to fix the issue, but the issue is likely already resolved from the first fix. Not only can this cause issues with certain tools, but can also cause massively increase the time to complete a build.

I think there are two reasonable solutions to this:

  1. If the "command" specified in .bazel_fix_commands.json returns a specific error code then immediately dump any existing output and restart the build.
  2. Add an option to .bazel_fix_commands.json that specifies that a match should only be applied once per build.
DavidANeil added a commit to lucidsoftware/bazel-watcher that referenced this issue May 24, 2019
DavidANeil added a commit to lucidsoftware/bazel-watcher that referenced this issue May 25, 2019
DavidANeil added a commit to lucidsoftware/bazel-watcher that referenced this issue May 28, 2019
DavidANeil added a commit to lucidsoftware/bazel-watcher that referenced this issue May 28, 2019
DavidANeil added a commit to lucidsoftware/bazel-watcher that referenced this issue May 28, 2019
@github-actions
Copy link

Stale issue message

@achew22
Copy link
Member

achew22 commented Dec 18, 2019

@DavidANeil we left things at adding some documentation in PR #262 . Is this still of interest to you?

@DavidANeil
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think there is consensus that no-one wants this currently. Closing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants