Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Problem
The auto-detection strategy to find a
luteexecutable on the user's system is currently shallow and hard-coded.It:
lutein the foreman bin (workspace-dependent)Solution
Use a more exhaustive strategy to find existing lute paths:
foreman/rokitbin, if found use that executableforeman/rokittool storage, picking latest lute version (if any)We also confirm that the found paths are actually executable, since foreman/rokit bins can be stale.
There are still some issues with this, for example, the fact that our first check is in the foreman/rokit bin, which is workspace dependent and therefore prone to using unsupported lute versions. In general, however, it is a much better start