Warn about missing default-language
#9621
Conversation
ffaf1
added
attention: needs-review
attention: needs-manual-qa
ffaf1
force-pushed
the
default-language
branch
from
b4fd611
to
e3a29e4
Compare
| @@ -485,7 +485,6 @@ checkBuildInfoFeatures bi sv = do | |||
| -- CheckSpecVer sv. | |||
| checkP | |||
| ( sv >= CabalSpecV1_10 | |||
| && sv < CabalSpecV3_4 | |||
| && isNothing (defaultLanguage bi) | |||
| ) | |||
| (PackageBuildWarning CVDefaultLanguageComponent) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@gbaz does hackage reject uploads that have PackageBuildWarnings?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It does
(and we should remember to change this bit to isHackageDistError as soon as Cabal 3.12 is released)
| @@ -485,7 +485,6 @@ checkBuildInfoFeatures bi sv = do | |||
| -- CheckSpecVer sv. | |||
| checkP | |||
| ( sv >= CabalSpecV1_10 | |||
| && sv < CabalSpecV3_4 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure about this. All the other times this behavior was changed it was restricted to a new spec version, but now we are changing an existing spec. Should we warn only when cabal-version is at least 3.11 instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am checking #6926 and I am just seeing a ^^^ availableSince CabalSpecV1_10 Nothing w/r/t spec (specifically: there is nothing regarding CabalSpecV3_4).
More in general, I don’t think we are messing with the spec this time (compare with PackageInfo fiasco), we are just dealing with check behaviour, but I might be wrong. (eidt: and we are more restrictive in what we accept)
cabal check raison d'être is (also) to mirror future Hackage behaviour; if Hackage decides not to accept packages withouth default-language for all cabal spec versions, cabal check should follow that.
| issues: #9620 | ||
| description: { | ||
|
|
||
| - `cabal check` will warn about missing `default-language` and not assume `Haskell 2010`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure this comment is accurate, if you see Distribution.Simple.GHC.Internal, not specifying a default-language defaults to Haskell98.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
#6926 says otherwise. maybe buildinfo gets populated anyway? we should test with -v3`
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is specifically about check though.
Would removing “ and not assume Haskell 2010” be ok for you?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Cabal changelog also claims it uses the compiler's default language: https://cabal.readthedocs.io/en/stable/file-format-changelog.html#cabal-version-3-4.
ffaf1
force-pushed
the
default-language
branch
from
e3a29e4
to
04069fa
Compare
To accomodate GHC language editions (GHC2021, GHC2024, etc.).
ffaf1
force-pushed
the
default-language
branch
from
04069fa
to
c38a662
Compare
ffaf1
removed
attention: needs-review
attention: needs-manual-qa
|
Someone (I believe @alt-romes) pointed out in dev-call that current behaviour (out of sync with docs, alas) defaults to I am closing this and bringing the discussion in the original issue #9620 |
|
I've opened #9668 to document that behaviour. |
Closes #9620
To accomodate GHC language editions (GHC2021, GHC2024, etc.).
Include the following checklist in your PR:
QA notes
.cabalfile withcabal-version: 3.4and nodefault-languagefield.cabal checkwill not complain about missing default language.cabal checkwill emit ano-default-languagewarning.