test-bundle

[Robert Goldman]

On 21 Feb 2018, at 10:55, Faré wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> 
> wrote:
>> I still see these "dependency not done" warnings in test-bundle on 
>> SBCL and
>> other implementations (I haven't checked them all, but at least my 
>> big
>> three: SBCL, Allegro, and CCL).
>>
> I can see them too.
>
>> This seems like a bug somewhere, right? And it must be an ASDF bug, 
>> probably
>> in the definition of LOAD-OP for bundles.
>>
> I believe it's all due to this method:
>
>   (defmethod mark-operation-done :after ((o load-bundle-op) (c 
> system))
>     (mark-operation-done (find-operation o 'load-op) c)))

Thanks for explaining that.  That said, can you explain why we do this, 
instead of marking `load-bundle-op` as done?  I guess because loading 
the bundle is intended to be equivalent to loading the system, so that 
if we load a bundle for a system, S, we want other systems that depend 
on S to know that it has been loaded.

Related to this, the first parameter to `FIND-OPERATION` is described as 
a "context," but there's nowhere an explanation of what a context is 
meant to be and in what way another operation can be a context.  
`find-operation` is actually confusing me a bit, because it seems to 
have quite different behavior for strings and symbols:

```
(defmethod find-operation ((context t) (spec operation))
     spec)
   (defmethod find-operation ((context t) (spec symbol))
     (when spec ;; NIL designates itself, i.e. absence of operation
       (make-operation spec))) ;; TODO: preserve the 
(operation-canonical-initargs context)
   (defmethod find-operation ((context t) (spec string))
     (make-operation spec))) ;; TODO: preserve the 
(operation-canonical-initargs context)
```

I read this as "find an operation by making it.  Ignore the context 
argument." So I'm not entirely sure why it exists (presumably because 
it's idempotent, and `MAKE-OPERATION` is not), or why it has the 
`context` argument.  I guess that you foresaw the need for a context at 
some point, but never ended up using it?

>
> Said method should probably somehow hush these specific warnings,
> or first recurse into all dependencies and mark them done, or be 
> removed.
> You decide.

As I said above, I don't yet understand why that method exists, so I 
don't know what would be the implications of removing it.

Yes, we could make that dependency warning into a defined condition and 
muffle it in this context.  I just need to understand a little better 
the implications of doing that.

>
> While it's indeed a cosmetic bug to issue the warning,
> I believe the underlying logic is sound.
>
>> So, even after the last email, I'm inclined to hold up a release 
>> until I
>> understand this bug and kill it.
>>
>
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• 
> http://fare.tunes.org
> Toleration is not about respecting other people's ideas.
> We have every right to fight ideas we think are stupid.
> Toleration is about respecting other people's persons.
> We have every duty to respect even persons we think are stupid.
>                 — Faré
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20180221/1872a991/attachment.html>