This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
- # 100-days-of-code (16)
- # beginners (67)
- # boot (5)
- # cljs-dev (52)
- # cljsjs (2)
- # clojure (94)
- # clojure-spec (34)
- # clojure-uk (10)
- # clojurescript (91)
- # clojutre (1)
- # core-async (20)
- # cursive (5)
- # datomic (1)
- # figwheel-main (70)
- # fulcro (101)
- # hyperfiddle (3)
- # jobs (1)
- # klipse (16)
- # mount (1)
- # nrepl (3)
- # off-topic (24)
- # portkey (39)
- # re-frame (4)
- # reitit (1)
- # shadow-cljs (3)
- # spacemacs (9)
- # tools-deps (5)
Hmm. Master is currently OK in CI https://github.com/mfikes/clojurescript/commits/master Will try locally.
Hmm. I recall some problems with Node 9 even in another ClojureScript project I was running. Let me try that with ClojureScript's tests.
the versions of these (npm and node) are not mentioned anywhere in the pre-requisites
Right. The only problem I'm aware of is one that occurs with an ancient version of NPM / Node https://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJS-2878 And I had assumed my Node 9 problems may have been related to something half-baked in Node 9. (I think Node 8 and 10 worked for me IIRC.)
Hrm. I can't repro any failures locally
$ node --version v9.7.1 $ npm -version 5.6.0 $ lein test :only cljs.module-processing-tests lein test cljs.module-processing-tests Ran 5 tests containing 14 assertions. 0 failures, 0 errors.
It is not exactly CLJS-2703, but close. New ticket: https://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJS-2914
(for example *ensure the directory path has no special chars including ‘.’ and ‘-’)
(It probably affects more than just compiler devs... in that it could affect any ClojureScript project that has a dot in its name)
@mfikes Looking through the cljs/newbie-friendly tasks. Quite a few of the older ones have patches that no longer apply.
If I find tickets like that, I usually leave a comment that the patch no longer applies.
So I’m wondering is there a magic incantation to make the patch apply and still keep attribution?
There’s no magic but if you can manually reapply the change and make a patch, you can just swap the author line with the one from the original patch to retain attribution
Those are open questions in my mind, especially in the case of non-trivial patches. But for newbie tickets may be easy to create new patches. Another concern is the case when the patch author hasn’t signed the CA.
I guess for the last case, I understand one should do a clean room reimplementation of the patch, right?
Definitely. You don’t want to derive a patch from a patch authored by someone who hasn’t signed the CA.
Many of my inchoate thoughts about the recent type inference stuff I've been brewing up were captured in a discussion with Daniel Compton https://therepl.net/episodes/3/
Sorry, nothing on topic here. Just had fun noticing that "inchoate" is a so-called "unpaired word", i.e. "choate" isn't a word that means the opposite of "inchoate". Humorous article "How I Met My Wife" is an exercise in using many of these all in one short story: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1994/07/25/how-i-met-my-wife