On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Alexis Midon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 .
Not rephrasing, just offering a more practical solution to figure out dependency problems. And to get the java(c) command line in all its glory: nohup buildr --trace | grep ^java Adding all sorts of knobs and switches into Buildr sounds compelling, but if we end up delivering Buildr Team Server Enterprise Edition Pro, I think we'll failed our goal. So I'm looking to exhaust all the other options first. Assaf > > > > 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 >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >
