FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending |
URL:
| Home
Tools: [Download Repo ZIP]   [Original HTTPS Page]

gyp: muffle xcode-select warnings by ryzokuken · Pull Request #21784 · nodejs/node · GitHub

/ node Public

gyp: muffle xcode-select warnings - #21784

Closed
ryzokuken wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom
ryzokuken:gyp-xcode-select
ConversationCommits (1)ChecksFiles changed
Closed

gyp: muffle xcode-select warnings#21784
ryzokuken wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom
ryzokuken:gyp-xcode-select

Conversation

ryzokuken commented Jul 12, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • tests and/or benchmarks are included
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

/cc @nodejs/gyp @gibfahn

sorry for holding this off until today 😅

Do we use a different version of gyp as compared to node-gyp? I found all the right function calls but they were calling different things, so had been wondering.

nodejs-github-bot commented Jul 12, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@ryzokuken build started: https://ci.nodejs.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/detail/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/259/pipeline

nodejs-github-bot added build Issues and PRs related to build files or the CI. tools Issues and PRs related to the tools directory. labels Jul 12, 2018
gyp: muffle xcode-select warnings
1c91528 
Muffle gyp from creating xcode-select related warnings, essentially
flooding the console.

Co-authored-by: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com>
Refs: nodejs/node-gyp#1370
Refs: nodejs#21520

Trott commented Jul 12, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Is the benefit of discarding the spurious error greater than the cost of swallowing other useful debugging information in the event of a real error? (I don't know the answer.)

gibfahn commented Jul 13, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Is the benefit of discarding the spurious error greater than the cost of swallowing other useful debugging information in the event of a real error? (I don't know the answer.)

See discussion in #21520 , but I'd say absolutely. This is the minimal changeset, and it shouldn't swallow any relevant errors.

See nodejs/node-gyp#569 for the pain it causes, I think we should keep the in-tree GYP build as similar as possible to the node-gyp version in any case.

gibfahn approved these changes Jul 13, 2018
View reviewed changes

gibfahn left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

LGTM FWIW, but would appreciate other reviews.

richardlau commented Jul 14, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I think we should keep the in-tree GYP build as similar as possible to the node-gyp version in any case.

Radical idea: What if we dropped the in-tree gyp in favour of the one embedded in node-gyp (which we are already dependent on to build the addon tests)?

gibfahn commented Jul 17, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Radical idea: What if we dropped the in-tree gyp in favour of the one embedded in node-gyp (which we are already dependent on to build the addon tests)?

@nodejs/build @nodejs/node-gyp

jasnell commented Sep 10, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

What's the status on this one?

jasnell added the stalled Issues and PRs that are stalled. label Sep 10, 2018

ryzokuken commented Sep 10, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@richardlau has an excellent suggestion, but this PR can be landed nonetheless.

ryzokuken commented Nov 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Noticed that nobody landed this, but it has enough approvals, etc. Landing this in a few hours unless someone objects.

refack previously approved these changes Nov 8, 2018
View reviewed changes

refack commented Nov 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ryzokuken if you'd like to submit a PR "upstream", where we could debate the finer point of this case.

refack removed the stalled Issues and PRs that are stalled. label Nov 8, 2018

refack commented Nov 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

wait... we already landed #21999 16cffb0
😕

refack dismissed their stale review November 8, 2018 17:32

superseded by 16cffb0

richardlau commented Nov 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Noticed that nobody landed this, but it has enough approvals, etc. Landing this in a few hours unless someone objects.

This has conflicts and needs an up to date CI run.

refack commented Nov 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I'm going to close this as superseded. @ryzokuken feel free to reopen.

refack closed this Nov 8, 2018

ryzokuken commented Nov 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@refack will do.

ryzokuken commented Nov 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Waiiit a minute. Why would I open two PRs with the exact same goal?

This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Show hidden characters
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

jasnell jasnell approved these changes
+2 more reviewers
gibfahn gibfahn approved these changes
refack refack left review comments
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

build Issues and PRs related to build files or the CI. tools Issues and PRs related to the tools directory.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants

Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL