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

Make a separate toolchain for doctest. #310

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 14, 2018
Merged

Conversation

judah
Copy link
Collaborator

@judah judah commented Jun 14, 2018

For Hazel, we would like haskell_doctest to use a doctest binary built
by Hazel itself. However, since haskell_binary depends on the
haskell_toolchain, which takes the binary as an attribute, doing so would
currently cause a dependency loop. (The alternative is to pull it from
Nix, which is redundant since Hazel can already build its library
dependencies.)

Making a separate toolchain resolves the loop, and also seems fairly
reasonable since the doctest parameter was already optional in
haskell_toolchain.

For Hazel, we would like `haskell_doctest` to use a `doctest` binary built
by Hazel itself.  However, since `haskell_binary` depends on the
`haskell_toolchain`, which takes the binary as an attribute, doing so would
currently cause a dependency loop.  (The alternative is to pull it from
Nix, which is redundant since Hazel can already build its library
dependencies.)

Making a separate toolchain breaks the loop, and also seems fairly
reasonable since the doctest parameter was already optional in
`haskell_toolchain`.
@judah judah requested review from mboes and mrkkrp June 14, 2018 05:14
@judah judah force-pushed the doctest-separate-toolchain branch from d3c283a to 8f7b41b Compare June 14, 2018 05:16
@judah
Copy link
Collaborator Author

judah commented Jun 14, 2018

The corresponding (pending) change to Hazel: FormationAI/hazel@f41e069

@mboes mboes merged commit 1d3daac into master Jun 14, 2018
@mboes mboes deleted the doctest-separate-toolchain branch June 14, 2018 06:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants