Open Skoti opened 1 year ago
Yes agree if the Mintfile is explicit then it should fail if not found. In other cases Mint was designed to run packages without a Mintfile at all (that functionality came before the Mintfile even existed). I can understand if that seems like odd behaviour in certain cases.
This check is hiding the error when the Mintfile does not exists: https://github.com/yonaskolb/Mint/blob/fdff1b5f8535e5d6e4ffb7d01a309a57dfe106f1/Sources/MintKit/Mint.swift#L124-L126
Causing commands like:
mint run --no-install -m incorrect/path packageNameToRun
to fail because the newest version of the package was not found. The bootstrap was done earlier with the correct Mintfile path.Or commands like:
mint run -m incorrect/path packageNameToRun
to install the undesired newest version of the specified package and run with it ❗Seems like the fix is not as easy as:
because then 6 tests fail, I guess in some contexts it is expecting to run without Mintfile, but I don't know the internal assumptions of this project.
Anyway, surely when you specify Mintfile explicitly via
-m
option then it must fail if that file does not exist. Regardless of whether it is the default path specified-m Mintfile
or a custom one.In the current state, it leads to confusion and hard-to-understand behaviours.