-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 297
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
Add verbose logging to Analyze and Build phases #636
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## release/0.11.0 #636 +/- ##
==================================================
+ Coverage 70.90% 70.94% +0.04%
==================================================
Files 68 68
Lines 4828 4834 +6
==================================================
+ Hits 3423 3429 +6
Misses 1078 1078
Partials 327 327
|
The file changes look good to me. I am getting an interesting problem when trying to run acceptance on your branch: Released pack:
Dev pack:
I don't think this change in behavior has anything to do with your changes, probably it's something else on master (you'll notice the creator is used instead of the 5 phases). Probably we want to understand this change because I don't think it is expected... cc @jromero |
It was the network mode :) Dev pack:
Release pack again because I forgot the
You'll notice that dev pack has more output so I think we can consider this one accepted :) |
On second thought, I only verified this for analyze :( I am sure build is working, I just forgot to copy the output... |
Thank you @natalieparellano for the user acceptance. Based on the changes, it would be safe to say that build would behave the same. |
👍 Excellent work @dfreilich! |
This is interesting - it appears from the test failures that lifecycle |
@natalieparellano I saw that as well. I'm debating only adding it in for Analyze right now, to at least get it partly in, or diving in to lifecycle to figure out what's up with build |
d164cf7
to
9654c17
Compare
We obviously can't change a previously released implementation of the lifecycle. Could we add a check around the Platform API version in order to not set the flag for Platform API 0.2? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given that this is going to a release branch, we'd want to take care of any compatibility issues in this PR before merging. Sorry @dfreilich.
c5b9605
to
5ce2433
Compare
e859c40
to
69ff48d
Compare
4f43f2f
to
4111130
Compare
Signed-off-by: David Freilich <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Freilich <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Freilich <[email protected]>
4111130
to
957bf93
Compare
Closes #419
Signed-off-by: David Freilich [email protected]