From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59063)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1j3mSH-0007CQ-LE
 for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:53:22 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1j3mSG-0007QL-EC
 for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:53:21 -0500
Received: from sender4-of-o51.zoho.com ([136.143.188.51]:21130)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1j3mSG-0007PM-2K
 for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:53:20 -0500
References: <87blpxo7p9.fsf@jlicht.xyz> <875zg5mgzr.fsf@elephly.net>
 <874kvpmeq2.fsf@elephly.net> <878sl1nk0c.fsf@jlicht.xyz>
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Subject: Re: How to get started using GWL 0.2.0
In-reply-to: <878sl1nk0c.fsf@jlicht.xyz>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:53:11 +0100
Message-ID: <8736b9m1nc.fsf@elephly.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <gwl-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/gwl-devel>,
 <mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gwl-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:gwl-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gwl-devel>,
 <mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: gwl-devel-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "gwl-devel" <gwl-devel-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Jelle Licht <jlicht@fsfe.org>
Cc: gwl-devel@gnu.org


Jelle Licht <jlicht@fsfe.org> writes:

> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:
>
>> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>> I fixed the bug locally, but I want to add a few more tests for that
>> part of the code before pushing it.
>
> I'd still like to play around with any (temporary) workaround you might
> have. Would you be willing share it as a patch that I can apply locally?

Oh, certainly.  The reason for the bug is that I didn=E2=80=99t bother test=
ing
workflows without any inputs.  The temporary workaround is to add an
input, even if you aren=E2=80=99t using it:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
process hello-world
  inputs "/tmp"
  # { echo "Hello, world!" }

workflow do-the-thing
  processes hello-world
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Sorry about this!

--=20
Ricardo