Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

inspect-builder does not represent optionality of buildpacks within groups. #127

Closed
nebhale opened this issue Mar 29, 2019 · 3 comments
Closed
Assignees
Labels
size/sm Small level of effort type/enhancement Issue that requests a new feature or improvement.
Milestone

Comments

@nebhale
Copy link
Contributor

nebhale commented Mar 29, 2019

Currently when pack inspect-builder is run, it lists the buildpacks in a group, but does not describe their optionality.

  Group #1:
    org.cloudfoundry.openjdk@latest
    org.cloudfoundry.buildsystem@latest
    io.projectriff.java@latest
    org.cloudfoundry.azureapplicationinsights@latest
    org.cloudfoundry.debug@latest
    org.cloudfoundry.googlestackdriver@latest
    org.cloudfoundry.jmx@latest
    org.cloudfoundry.procfile@latest

represented by

[[groups]]
labels = [ "java", "riff" ]
buildpacks = [
  { id = "org.cloudfoundry.openjdk",                  version = "latest" },
  { id = "org.cloudfoundry.buildsystem",              version = "latest", optional = true },
  { id = "io.projectriff.java",                       version = "latest" },

  { id = "org.cloudfoundry.azureapplicationinsights", version = "latest", optional = true },
  { id = "org.cloudfoundry.debug",                    version = "latest", optional = true },
  { id = "org.cloudfoundry.googlestackdriver",        version = "latest", optional = true },
  { id = "org.cloudfoundry.jmx",                      version = "latest", optional = true },

  { id = "org.cloudfoundry.procfile",                 version = "latest", optional = true },
]

The optionality of the buildpacks in each group should be represented in the output.

@ekcasey ekcasey added the type/enhancement Issue that requests a new feature or improvement. label Apr 9, 2019
@djoyahoy djoyahoy self-assigned this Apr 23, 2019
@djoyahoy djoyahoy removed their assignment Apr 24, 2019
@sclevine sclevine added the size/sm Small level of effort label Apr 25, 2019
@djoyahoy djoyahoy self-assigned this Apr 30, 2019
djoyahoy pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 30, 2019
[#127]

Signed-off-by: Danny Joyce <djoyce@pivotal.io>
@mgibson1121
Copy link
Member

mgibson1121 commented Apr 30, 2019

After speaking w/ @djoyahoy, we're holding off on testing this until optionality can be reflected when running pack inspect-builder on the builders a user sees when they run pack suggest-builders. Although I can build mock builders and see the functionality of this story is implemented, seems that the real value isn't there until we can deliver on what I mention in the last sentence

@mgibson1121
Copy link
Member

Disregard my above comment, optionality shows up with remote builders, but the suggested builders don't have optionality. Accepting this story.

@ekcasey ekcasey added the v0.2.0 label May 2, 2019
@ekcasey
Copy link
Member

ekcasey commented May 2, 2019

done on master will ship in v0.2.0

@ekcasey ekcasey closed this as completed May 2, 2019
@jromero jromero added this to the 0.2.0 milestone Aug 19, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
size/sm Small level of effort type/enhancement Issue that requests a new feature or improvement.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants