librelist archives

« back to archive

Integrity path leaking into builds

Integrity path leaking into builds

From:
Joel Chippindale
Date:
2009-12-03 @ 08:51
I am running integrity with a delayed job worker which handles builds.

I recently when the build is run that the PATH has been prefixed with
"/path/to/integrity/vendor/gems/../../bin". Clearly I'd like my
project builds to be independent of the particular versions of files
like rake etc. that integrity has vendored.

It would be good if integrity removed its bin directory from the PATH
before running the build, any suggestions on the best way to do this?

J.

Re: Integrity path leaking into builds

From:
Simon Rozet
Date:
2009-12-04 @ 01:48
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Joel Chippindale
<joel.chippindale@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am running integrity with a delayed job worker which handles builds.
>
> I recently when the build is run that the PATH has been prefixed with
> "/path/to/integrity/vendor/gems/../../bin". Clearly I'd like my
> project builds to be independent of the particular versions of files
> like rake etc. that integrity has vendored.
>
> It would be good if integrity removed its bin directory from the PATH
> before running the build, any suggestions on the best way to do this?

I agreed but at the same time I am tempted to say its the build script's
job to setup the PATH.

Re: Integrity path leaking into builds

From:
Joel Chippindale
Date:
2009-12-08 @ 16:27
You're right it's fair enough to expect the build instructions to set
the path explicitly if it needs something special.

However I would integrity to be as inconspicuous as possible WRT to
the build, and so the least surprising thing would be keep integrity's
path additions out of the path when building.

If we were agreed it was a bug (or at least not desirable) then I'll
put a patch together.

J.

2009/12/4 Simon Rozet <srozet@engineyard.com>:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Joel Chippindale
> <joel.chippindale@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am running integrity with a delayed job worker which handles builds.
>>
>> I recently when the build is run that the PATH has been prefixed with
>> "/path/to/integrity/vendor/gems/../../bin". Clearly I'd like my
>> project builds to be independent of the particular versions of files
>> like rake etc. that integrity has vendored.
>>
>> It would be good if integrity removed its bin directory from the PATH
>> before running the build, any suggestions on the best way to do this?
>
> I agreed but at the same time I am tempted to say its the build script's
> job to setup the PATH.
>

Re: Integrity path leaking into builds

From:
Simon Rozet
Date:
2009-12-09 @ 08:13
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Joel Chippindale
<joel.chippindale@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're right it's fair enough to expect the build instructions to set
> the path explicitly if it needs something special.
>
> However I would integrity to be as inconspicuous as possible WRT to
> the build, and so the least surprising thing would be keep integrity's
> path additions out of the path when building.
>
> If we were agreed it was a bug (or at least not desirable) then I'll
> put a patch together.

I totally agree that the current behavior breaks the least suprise
rule; the amount of people having issues related to that proves it.

I sure am interested in a patch. I might not merge it depending on the
complexity it adds, though. Nevertheless, this behavior should at
least be clearely documented.

Thanks,

-- 
Simon Rozet <simon@rozet.name> http://atonie.org

Re: Integrity path leaking into builds

From:
Joel Chippindale
Date:
2009-12-16 @ 14:34
I've already mentioned this fix in another thread "fun environment bug
with the bundler", but just to make ti clear this commit

http://github.com/econsultancy/integrity/commit/43d88db381aa5141d4f06fba402c5178d518c657
should apply cleanly to master and resolve this problem of environment
changes made by bundler leaking into the builds.

J.

2009/12/9 Simon Rozet <simon@rozet.name>:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Joel Chippindale
> <joel.chippindale@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You're right it's fair enough to expect the build instructions to set
>> the path explicitly if it needs something special.
>>
>> However I would integrity to be as inconspicuous as possible WRT to
>> the build, and so the least surprising thing would be keep integrity's
>> path additions out of the path when building.
>>
>> If we were agreed it was a bug (or at least not desirable) then I'll
>> put a patch together.
>
> I totally agree that the current behavior breaks the least suprise
> rule; the amount of people having issues related to that proves it.
>
> I sure am interested in a patch. I might not merge it depending on the
> complexity it adds, though. Nevertheless, this behavior should at
> least be clearely documented.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Simon Rozet <simon@rozet.name> http://atonie.org
>