Add config value to make optional outputs required for remote execution #3189
Conversation
This file contains 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
peterebden
force-pushed
the
required-remote-outputs
branch
from
1d74edb
to
d9a3a6d
Compare
toastwaffle
approved these changes
Jul 3, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Over the past day or two, I've found a bunch of tests in our repo that don't cache properly because they don't produce all their outputs. This is really due to a mismatch between Please's semantics (that some test outputs are optional) and what REAPI is able to express. I'm fixing them as I can (#3188 is part of this) but it seems untenable in the long run since people can just break these again, and nothing tells them that anything is wrong.
This adds a config flag for remote execution to require optional test outputs to be present. I'll have to fix everything to be able to apply it, but once it's in, I'll at least know nobody will break it again the next time JS frameworks change.