phil-opp
commented
1 month ago Do we want to proceed with this approach? Personally, I think this is a considerable improvement because it changes the previous Command builder code to something that resembles normal shell commands:
From:
let cargo = std::env::var("CARGO").unwrap();
let mut cmd = tokio::process::Command::new(&cargo);
cmd.arg("run");
cmd.arg("--package").arg("dora-cli");
cmd.arg("--").arg("build").arg(dataflow);
if !cmd.status().await?.success() {
bail!("failed to build dataflow");
};To:
let dora = prepare_dora(&sh)?;
cmd!(sh, "{dora} build dataflow.yml").run()?;Possible alternatives:
- Remove the
run.rscompletely and only explain the build instructions in the README.- Drawback: No more automated testing on CI.
- Drawback: No
cargo run --example <example_name>
- Use a some cross-platform scripting language such as
justornuto create arun.sh- Drawback: Users need to install and learn a third-party tool to run our examples
- Automated CI testing and
cargo run --example <name>support still require arun.rswrapper
- Use a standard Unix tool for building, such as a Makefile or bash script.
- Simplifies Python
venv_ setup as we can use the standardactivatescript - Drawback: Windows users need to install Unix tools, which can be difficult
- Simplifies Python
haixuanTao
The
xshellcrate provides a more convenient way to build and run aCommand, which is more similar to traditional bash scripts. Using this crate, we can simplify ourrun.rsscripts while still being platform-independent and not requiring any external dependencies. We can also still run the examples usingcargo run --example.Alternative to #454 .