You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In addition, this is also error prone, since it's easy to accidentally point at the wrong compiled buildpack directory (for example release instead of debug), or a leftover previous build (as happened recently with @schneems).
One way to make this workflow easier would be to have a cargo libcnb run (or similar) command, that effectively performed both the cargo libcnb package followed by the pack build with suitable --buildpack arguments. For bonus points this command could clean up the old image (or not, depending on args).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As an added bonus, if we were to add a cargo libcnb run command, we could then perhaps make cargo libcnb package default to --release (given the primary use-case of that command would then be for production only), thereby fixing #359.
When developing a buildpack there are a few ways to iterate, that all have their place:
libcnb-test
powered integration testscargo libcnb package
followed bypack build
with the correct argumentsCurrently (3) requires quite a bit of boilerplate, for example:
In addition, this is also error prone, since it's easy to accidentally point at the wrong compiled buildpack directory (for example release instead of debug), or a leftover previous build (as happened recently with @schneems).
One way to make this workflow easier would be to have a
cargo libcnb run
(or similar) command, that effectively performed both thecargo libcnb package
followed by thepack build
with suitable--buildpack
arguments. For bonus points this command could clean up the old image (or not, depending on args).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: