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

RFC 0045: handling of args in direct=false processes #116

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 27, 2020
Merged

Conversation

ekcasey
Copy link
Member

@ekcasey ekcasey commented Jul 23, 2020

No description provided.

@ekcasey ekcasey requested a review from a team as a code owner July 23, 2020 21:58
@ekcasey ekcasey linked an issue Jul 23, 2020 that may be closed by this pull request
@ekcasey ekcasey added this to the Buildpack 0.4 milestone Jul 23, 2020
buildpack.md Outdated
@@ -556,7 +556,10 @@ To choose an execution strategy,

1. **IF** a buildpack-provided process type is chosen as the start command,
1. **IF** the process type does not have `direct` set to `true`,

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe it's better to write

**IF** the process type has `direct` set to `false`

**THEN** the lifecycle MUST invoke the value of `command` as a command using Bash with values of `args` provided as arguments.
1. **IF** the process has one or more `args`
**THEN** the lifecycle MUST invoke a command using Bash, where `command` and each entry in `args` are shell-parsed tokens in the command.
2. **IF** the process has zero `args`

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What do you think about changing 1 + 2 to if - else?
I'm not sure what is more clear.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wanted to insert this change without changing the conventions in this part of the spec. The existing convention here is numbered IFs.

Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <ecasey@vmware.com>
@nebhale nebhale requested a review from a team July 27, 2020 16:24
@nebhale nebhale merged commit 77faf02 into main Jul 27, 2020
@nebhale nebhale deleted the shell-args branch July 27, 2020 19:04
ekcasey added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 28, 2020
Now that we have buidpack API dependent launch logic, the launcher needs the api of each buildpack to exist in metadata.toml so it can do the right thing
* See #116 for an example (arg parsing for direct=false processes)

Other phases may have buidpack API dependent logic as well. Adding the `api` to group.toml will provide this the api of each buildpack everywhere it is needed.

Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <ecasey@vmware.com>
ekcasey added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 30, 2020
Now that we have buidpack API dependent launch logic, the launcher needs the api of each buildpack to exist in metadata.toml so it can do the right thing
* See #116 for an example (arg parsing for direct=false processes)

Other phases may have buidpack API dependent logic as well. Adding the `api` to group.toml will provide this the api of each buildpack everywhere it is needed.

Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <ecasey@vmware.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Shell process args
5 participants