Closed andreaTP closed 5 years ago
The counterpoint to making this a warning is that a misspelt subproject name would cause compilation to blissfully proceed, skipping the intended subproject, rather than aborting. Because of that reason, I don't think this should be unconditionally turned into a simple warning. I'd rather add a "strict" flag, which defaults to true, or even better address it together with #211, solving two problems at once.
Incidentally, you looked at the wrong file; you wanted this line: https://github.com/lightbend/dbuild/blob/1f7aededaa2a090c880192406a6b3e8164d3e487/plugin/src/main/scala/com/typesafe/dbuild/plugin/DBuildRunner.scala#L79
a misspelt subproject name would cause compilation to blissfully proceed
I understand, of course that is a minor drawback IMHO, since we are not causing true negative or false positive we simply end up having "slightly misconfigured" configuration.
Targeted also the other occurrence you correctly mention @cunei ! Thanks! :smile:
Closed in favor of https://github.com/lightbend/dbuild/pull/217
:+1:
The rationale behind this is that any evolution to a library that involves "more modularization" will fail and will require extra effort to be maintained.
In my experience often happen that a library get splitted in several modules while growing. Currently Dbuild does not support this kind of pattern in a back-compatible manner, having this
error
degraded to a simplewarning
will facilitate this use-case and has AFAICS no huge drawbacks.cc. @eed3si9n @cunei #211