well, in addition why not but if you're rephrasing my proposal I would say I feel more safe with the real java/javac commands so I can check all options, etc and might even want to reuse it .
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Alexis Midon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > one thing I was thinking of while debugging some classpath issues is that > > it's kind of a pain to get all the verbose ruby traces just to get the > > java/javac commands executed by buildr. > > > > How would you like an option to get only the java/javac output? or a less > > verbose trace option? > > How about a feature that dumps that just dumps the dependency lists > and nothing else? > > Assaf > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:41 AM, lacton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >> I want to know if they make your life better, just plan annoying, and > >> >> any ideas for making them even better. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> == Stack trace > >> > [...] > >> >> I'm toying around with making this a bit better, the latest change > >> >> will show any number of lines (usually just one) from the buildfile. > >> >> If you want to help find the right balance between two much > >> >> information and not enough, have a look at the > >> >> standard_exception_handling method in lib/buildr/core/application.rb > >> > > >> > +1 for me. > >> > > >> > Showing all concerned buildfile's lines even when not running with > >> > --trace saves time without crowding the screen too much. Most of the > >> > time, there is only one line to display anyway, but when there is two > >> > lines to show, I find it's usually a precious piece of information. > >> > > >> >> == Colors for errors > >> >> > >> >> I think it's a good idea to use a splash of color for salient > >> >> information. So I started by making error messages show up in red, > >> >> that way they're noticeable when you run Buildr from the console > >> >> (warnings are now blue). Any ideas on how to use colors more > >> >> effectively? > >> > > >> > I like your use of color. Could you give me an example of a blue > message? > >> > >> Right now we use warnings in three places. Deprecated warnings, for > >> every deprecated method or feature. In a few places, where we're not > >> sure it's an error but worth paying attention. For example, if you > >> run buildr package in a directory not associated with any project, it > >> warns you that "No projects defined for directory ...", but it still > >> runs that task -- it might do some other interesting things. > >> > >> The third place, a warning lists all the failed test cases for a > >> project. Typically, you'll also get an error message, unless you're > >> running with test=all, in which case it will keep running test cases > >> for other projects, so you can pick up these warnings from the > >> console. Although, maybe these should show as errors instead of > >> warnings? > >> > >> > >> > What would you think of making these facilities available to buildr > >> > users? As a user, I would like to be able to log messages in a way > >> > that is consistent with buildr. I imagine four methods: > >> > trace "a message that will be displayed only if --trace option > enabled" > >> > info "a message that will be displayed every time" > >> > warn "a message that will be displayed every time, in blue" > >> > error "a message that will be displayed every time, in red" > >> > >> I like that. > >> > >> > Or maybe the last one should be merged with the 'fail' method. > >> > >> I think there's a reason to have both error and fail. Specifically, > >> the test=all option allows you to run all the test cases, ignoring > >> errors, so there's no failure, but you'll still want to see these > >> error messages. > >> > >> Assaf > >> > >> > > >> > Lacton > >> > > >> > > >
