flycheck / flycheck-inline

Display Flycheck errors inline
GNU General Public License v3.0
137 stars 10 forks source link

error with void `flycheck-relevant-error-other-file-p` #7

Closed yatesco closed 5 years ago

yatesco commented 6 years ago

It seems that the flycheck-relevant-error-other-file isn't defined properly in the version pulled from MELPA:

(use-package flycheck-inline :ensure t) loads OK, but when you point over an error, it throws Flycheck error display error: (void-function flycheck-relevant-error-other-file-p)

If I add the following above use-package then it works, and I get the fantastic inline errors.

(defun flycheck-relevant-error-other-file-p (x)                                                                         
  nil)   

WARNING: I am a newbie(ish) at this stuff, so it is highly likely I have mucked something up myself.

fmdkdd commented 6 years ago

Can you report your installed flycheck-version? And flycheck-inline?

yatesco commented 6 years ago

I just downloaded fresh copies and I still get the same problem.

flycheck: v31 flycheck-inline: 20180821.849 emacs: 26.1

fmdkdd commented 6 years ago

flycheck: v31

flycheck-relevant-error-other-file-p is in version 32, which is unreleased yet. Although, MELPA should get you the latest development version. Are you using the MELPA stable channel?

yatesco commented 6 years ago

Not intentionally:-), I’ll double check this afternoon when I am next at the computer.

I erased my /elpa cache this morning, so everything is the latest.

Sent from my iPhone

On 3 Sep 2018, at 10:41, fmdkdd notifications@github.com wrote:

flycheck: v31

flycheck-relevant-error-other-file-p is in version 32, which is unreleased yet. Although, MELPA should get you the latest development version. Are you using the MELPA stable channel?

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

yatesco commented 6 years ago

I was using both Stable and non-stable. Removing Melpa Stable made other things break. Once I have sorted those out I will purse this. Feel free to close this and I can reopen if necessary (I have no idea what housekeeping rules you have :-)).

fmdkdd commented 6 years ago

I'll leave it open because we are in fact targeting the development version of flycheck, and declaring a dependency on flycheck 31, which is incorrect.

@cpitclaudel Will just bumping the dependency to flycheck . 32 in flycheck-inline work? I'm light on details on the process of dependency resolution done by package.el, in conjunction with loading packages from MELPA (in which the version number is actually 20180823.826).

cpitclaudel commented 6 years ago

Did we do a v32 release? The problem here seems to be that the latest Flycheck on MELPA is v31. Once we do that, bumping the dependency should work. For existing users, we don't even need to bump the dependency: next time they update they'll get the new Flycheck automatically.

fmdkdd commented 6 years ago

Did we do a v32 release?

We didn't. And I was hoping to resolve some UI issues with errors in other files before tagging v32. So my question is: what happens if we still declare a dependency on flycheck . 32 in flycheck-inline, even though v32 has not been tagged yet? Using MELPA unstable, it will always fetch the latest master, so that's a non-issue. But for people using MELPA stable, it should refuse to install flycheck if only the v31 can be found? And when using both stable and unstable, it will do the right thing?

Keep in mind that flycheck-inline is not in MELPA stable. Probably should be, if we just tagged a release as well.

cpitclaudel commented 6 years ago

But for people using MELPA stable, it should refuse to install flycheck if only the v31 can be found?

Yup, I think that's what it would do.

And when using both stable and unstable, it will do the right thing?

IIUC, yes