pkg/polymer/example/canonicalization2/pubspec.yaml - Issue 148913003: Improve how we handle packages/ HTML imports. This resolves better any valid

Side by Side Diff: pkg/polymer/example/canonicalization2/pubspec.yaml

Issue 148913003: Improve how we handle packages/ HTML imports. This resolves better any valid (Closed) Base URL: https://dart.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge/dart

Patch Set: Created 6 years, 10 months ago

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.

Jump to:

View unified diff | Download patch | Annotate | Revision Log

« pkg/pkg.status ('K') | « pkg/polymer/example/canonicalization2/lib/g.html ('k') | pkg/polymer/example/canonicalization2/test/bad_lib_import2_negative_test.dart » ('j') | pkg/polymer/example/canonicalization3/pubspec.yaml » ('J')
Toggle Intra-line Diffs ('i') | Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Hide Comments ('s')

OLD	NEW
(Empty)
	1 name: canonicalization2

	2 dependencies:

	3 polymer:

	4 path: ../../
	kustermann 2014/01/30 01:41:34 The canonicalization2 package is using polymer and The canonicalization2 package is using polymer and that should be it. You should not use any relative paths here. Why can't you just use 'polymer' as a dependency? Siggi Cherem (dart-lang) 2014/01/30 02:25:00 I'm not sure why? These packages are apps used for Show quoted text On 2014/01/30 01:41:34, kustermann wrote: > The canonicalization2 package is using polymer and that should be it. > > You should not use any relative paths here. I'm not sure why? These packages are apps used for testing only and are never intended to be published. Show quoted text > Why can't you just use 'polymer' as a dependency? I guess you mean 'polymer: any'? We often accumulate several changes before we publish them. I'm using a relative path to capture more accurately when a test depends on unpublished features. That being said, I'm not sure how are these version dependencies used by the bots. Are the bots going to test with pub's hosted version of polymer, or are we overriding the dependency to use the existing sources from the repo? In the case of 'canonicalization', some of these tests will fail if we run them with the currently published version of polymer (0.9.4). I plan to release 0.9.5 soon afterwards (I just updated this CL to include a version bump on polymer), but in the meantime we need to run them against the repo sources. If the bots ignore/override the dependency version, then I can change the dependency here to say: polymer: ">=0.9.5" kustermann* 2014/01/31 19:15:09 It will be an issue once all our bots will use "re Show quoted text On 2014/01/30 02:25:00, Siggi Cherem (dart-lang) wrote: > On 2014/01/30 01:41:34, kustermann wrote: > > The canonicalization2 package is using polymer and that should be it. > > > > You should not use any relative paths here. > > I'm not sure why? These packages are apps used for testing only and are never > intended to be published. > > > Why can't you just use 'polymer' as a dependency? > > I guess you mean 'polymer: any'? > > We often accumulate several changes before we publish them. I'm using a relative > path to capture more accurately when a test depends on unpublished features. > > That being said, I'm not sure how are these version dependencies used by the > bots. Are the bots going to test with pub's hosted version of polymer, or are we > overriding the dependency to use the existing sources from the repo? > > In the case of 'canonicalization', some of these tests will fail if we run them > with the currently published version of polymer (0.9.4). I plan to release 0.9.5 > soon afterwards (I just updated this CL to include a version bump on polymer), > but in the meantime we need to run them against the repo sources. > > If the bots ignore/override the dependency version, then I can change the > dependency here to say: > polymer: ">=0.9.5" It will be an issue once all our bots will use "real" package-roots (currently we stupidly create symlinks int out/ReleaseIA32/packages ...): It was requested that we test all our packages/samples with packages from the repository AND with packages from pub.dartlang.org. We've created infrastructure for doing this: - for every test we see if it's inside a package (canonicalization2 in this case) - we will then copy that pubspec.yaml into a temporary place and call 'pub get' to fetch the dependencies () - we will use the packages directory created by 'pub get' as a package-root for the test (i.e. we pass it to dart2js/vm/...) (*) When using public packages we don't modify the pubspec.yaml file. When using the packages in the repository, we use "dependency overrides" for the packages we have in the repo. Now you probably see the issue: If you use a relative path to polymer, and we copy the pubspec.yaml file to another place and call 'pub get', the relative path is wrong. I'm not sure if we should have relative paths at all, or we should special case this situation .... Note that even though the infrastructure is there (./tools/test.py --use-public-packages / ./tools/test.py --use-repository-packages), it's not enabled on the bots yet. For further discussions please get in touch with rico :)
	5 dev_dependencies:

	6 unittest: any

OLD	NEW