Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: 88bcdca The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
tatchi
force-pushed
the
fix-file-remove-error
branch
from
22062bd to
8cabe37
Compare
| if (!config.projectType.withNixFlake) { | ||
| yield* Effect.forEach( | ||
| [".envrc", "flake.lock", "flake.nix"], | ||
| [".envrc", "flake.nix"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This effect was failing because flake.lock doesn't exist, so we're not going past this code in this case. I feel like this is not the best fix; we should try to avoid this kind of situation in the future.
I guess we could pass { force: true } to fs.remove to ignore the exception if the path does not exist. Or handle it at the effect level and use something like Effect.ignore/ignoreLogged. Not sure if ignoring the error is the best solution though, open to any better idea ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@tatchi - thank you! I think either solution is fine, but I feel like I would probably use Effect.ignore for this case.
Either way, this PR looks good for this particular issue. If you want to add Effect.ignores in the relevant places as part of this PR let me know. Otherwise also let me know if you're happy with this as is and I'll get this merged 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we basically add Effect.ignore to every place where we use fs.ignore ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can start with just adding it to places where we attempt to remove files.
|
Thanks @tatchi ! |
2 participants
Type
Description
Although I said no to the
changesetandnix, I still got some content related to them like theflake.nixfile or changesetpatchedDependenciesRelated