More new warnings from ASDF 3.3, this time I have no idea what it means.
WARNING: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action (ASDF/LISP-ACTION:LOAD-OP "system"), but dependency (ASDF/FIND-SYSTEM:DEFINE-OP
"system") wasn't done yet!
The .asd file is not public, but it looks perfectly normal without using any complicated features.
It's hard to tell without seeing the .asd file. The message says that you completed the load-op of the system, but somehow you never did the define-op of the system (the new action that tracks the loading of .asd files so that defsystem-depends-on can be properly staged).
Can you tell us more about the "non-complicated" features that you use? Do you follow the "best practices" document? https://github.com/fare/asdf/blob/master/doc/best_practices.md
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Don't forget your daily prayer to Baah-kup, the God of data storage and recovery!
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Stas Boukarev stassats@gmail.com wrote:
More new warnings from ASDF 3.3, this time I have no idea what it means.
WARNING: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action (ASDF/LISP-ACTION:LOAD-OP "system"), but dependency (ASDF/FIND-SYSTEM:DEFINE-OP
"system") wasn't done yet!
The .asd file is not public, but it looks perfectly normal without using any complicated features.
It's a work file, can't publish it. But it's just a defsystem with depends-on and components.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:46 PM Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
It's hard to tell without seeing the .asd file. The message says that you completed the load-op of the system, but somehow you never did the define-op of the system (the new action that tracks the loading of .asd files so that defsystem-depends-on can be properly staged).
Can you tell us more about the "non-complicated" features that you use? Do you follow the "best practices" document? https://github.com/fare/asdf/blob/master/doc/best_practices.md
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Don't forget your daily prayer to Baah-kup, the God of data storage and recovery!
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Stas Boukarev stassats@gmail.com wrote:
More new warnings from ASDF 3.3, this time I have no idea what it means.
WARNING: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action (ASDF/LISP-ACTION:LOAD-OP "system"), but dependency (ASDF/FIND-SYSTEM:DEFINE-OP
"system") wasn't done yet!
The .asd file is not public, but it looks perfectly normal without using
any
complicated features.
Can you anonymize it and send it? Or extract a minimal failure case? I can't reproduce at home, nor imagine what could be happening.
Anton, could you test the syntax-control branch with cl-test-grid, and grep the results for expansions of the format string "Computing just-done stamp in plan ~S for action ~S, but dependency ~S wasn't done yet!" ?
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Mathematics is as little a science as grammar is a language. — Ernst Mayr
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, 08:11 Stas Boukarev stassats@gmail.com wrote:
It's a work file, can't publish it. But it's just a defsystem with depends-on and components.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:46 PM Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
It's hard to tell without seeing the .asd file. The message says that you completed the load-op of the system, but somehow you never did the define-op of the system (the new action that tracks the loading of .asd files so that defsystem-depends-on can be properly staged).
Can you tell us more about the "non-complicated" features that you use? Do you follow the "best practices" document? https://github.com/fare/asdf/blob/master/doc/best_practices.md
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Don't forget your daily prayer to Baah-kup, the God of data storage and recovery!
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Stas Boukarev stassats@gmail.com wrote:
More new warnings from ASDF 3.3, this time I have no idea what it means.
WARNING: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action (ASDF/LISP-ACTION:LOAD-OP "system"), but dependency (ASDF/FIND-SYSTEM:DEFINE-OP
"system") wasn't done yet!
The .asd file is not public, but it looks perfectly normal without using any complicated features.
Hi, I am also getting this error when trying to run (asdf:test-system ....). It is also not finding the test-files but that might be an but in the prove package?
Summary: All 0 files passed. WARNING: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action (ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP "iparse"), but dependency (ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP "iparse-test") wasn't done yet!
system asd:
#| This file is a part of iparse project. Copyright (c) 2017 Christopher Eames (chream) (chream@gmx.com) |#
#| Author: Christopher Eames (chream) (chream@gmx.com) |#
(in-package :cl-user) (defpackage iparse-asd (:use :cl :asdf)) (in-package :iparse-asd)
(defsystem iparse :version "0.1.1" :class :package-inferred-system :author "Christopher Eames (chream)" :license "MIT" :depends-on ("iparse/src/iparse") :description "A small parsing and data structure library." :long-description #.(with-open-file (stream (merge-pathnames #p"README.markdown" (or *load-pathname* *compile-file-pathname*)) :if-does-not-exist nil :direction :input) (when stream (let ((seq (make-array (file-length stream) :element-type 'character :fill-pointer t))) (setf (fill-pointer seq) (read-sequence seq stream)) seq))) :in-order-to ((test-op (test-op iparse-test))))
(register-system-packages "closer-mop" '(:c2mop :closer-common-lisp :c2cl :closer-common-lisp-user :c2cl-user)) (register-system-packages "lil" '(:lil/core :interface :pure :smltateful :classy :posh :lil/test))
(register-system-packages "iparse/src/all" '(:iparse.dev)) (register-system-packages "iparse/src/formats" '(:iparse.formats)) (register-system-packages "iparse/src/utils" '(:iparse.utils)) (register-system-packages "iparse/src/iparse" '(:iparse)) (register-system-packages "iparse/src/types" '(:iparse.types))
Test system asd:
#| This file is a part of iparse project. Copyright (c) 2017 Christopher Eames (chream) (chream@gmx.com) |#
(in-package :cl-user) (defpackage iparse-test-asd (:use :cl :asdf)) (in-package :iparse-test-asd)
(defsystem iparse-test :author "Christopher Eames (chream)" :license "" :depends-on (:iparse :prove) :components ((:module "t" :serial t :components ((:file "utils") (:test-file "utils-test") (:test-file "read-single-test-byte") (:test-file "read-single-test-sequence") (:test-file "read-single-test-composite") (:test-file "read-single-test-class") (:test-file "byte") (:test-file "macro") (:module "new" :serial t :components ((:test-file "basic-tests")))))) :description "Test system for iparse"
:defsystem-depends-on (:prove-asdf) :perform (test-op :after (op c) (funcall (intern #.(string :run-test-system) :prove-asdf) c) (asdf:clear-system c)))
Christopher
On 18 Oct 2017, at 15:05, Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
Can you anonymize it and send it? Or extract a minimal failure case? I can't reproduce at home, nor imagine what could be happening.
Anton, could you test the syntax-control branch with cl-test-grid, and grep the results for expansions of the format string "Computing just-done stamp in plan ~S for action ~S, but dependency ~S wasn't done yet!" ?
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Mathematics is as little a science as grammar is a language. — Ernst Mayr
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, 08:11 Stas Boukarev stassats@gmail.com wrote:
It's a work file, can't publish it. But it's just a defsystem with depends-on and components.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:46 PM Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
It's hard to tell without seeing the .asd file. The message says that you completed the load-op of the system, but somehow you never did the define-op of the system (the new action that tracks the loading of .asd files so that defsystem-depends-on can be properly staged).
Can you tell us more about the "non-complicated" features that you use? Do you follow the "best practices" document? https://github.com/fare/asdf/blob/master/doc/best_practices.md
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Don't forget your daily prayer to Baah-kup, the God of data storage and recovery!
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Stas Boukarev stassats@gmail.com wrote:
More new warnings from ASDF 3.3, this time I have no idea what it means.
WARNING: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action (ASDF/LISP-ACTION:LOAD-OP "system"), but dependency (ASDF/FIND-SYSTEM:DEFINE-OP
"system") wasn't done yet!
The .asd file is not public, but it looks perfectly normal without using any complicated features.
Is this system somewhere available (e.g., GitHub) so we could try to replicate?
For that matter, could we break on signals and get a backtrace?
thanks, r
On 18 Oct 2017, at 8:25, Chream iz wrote:
Hi, I am also getting this error when trying to run (asdf:test-system ....). It is also not finding the test-files but that might be an but in the prove package?
Summary: All 0 files passed. WARNING: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action (ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP "iparse"), but dependency (ASDF/LISP-ACTION:TEST-OP "iparse-test") wasn't done yet!
system asd:
#| This file is a part of iparse project. Copyright (c) 2017 Christopher Eames (chream) (chream@gmx.com) |#
#| Author: Christopher Eames (chream) (chream@gmx.com) |#
(in-package :cl-user) (defpackage iparse-asd (:use :cl :asdf)) (in-package :iparse-asd)
(defsystem iparse :version "0.1.1" :class :package-inferred-system :author "Christopher Eames (chream)" :license "MIT" :depends-on ("iparse/src/iparse") :description "A small parsing and data structure library." :long-description #.(with-open-file (stream (merge-pathnames #p"README.markdown" (or *load-pathname* *compile-file-pathname*)) :if-does-not-exist nil :direction :input) (when stream (let ((seq (make-array (file-length stream) :element-type 'character :fill-pointer t))) (setf (fill-pointer seq) (read-sequence seq stream)) seq))) :in-order-to ((test-op (test-op iparse-test))))
(register-system-packages "closer-mop" '(:c2mop :closer-common-lisp :c2cl :closer-common-lisp-user :c2cl-user)) (register-system-packages "lil" '(:lil/core :interface :pure :smltateful :classy :posh :lil/test))
(register-system-packages "iparse/src/all" '(:iparse.dev)) (register-system-packages "iparse/src/formats" '(:iparse.formats)) (register-system-packages "iparse/src/utils" '(:iparse.utils)) (register-system-packages "iparse/src/iparse" '(:iparse)) (register-system-packages "iparse/src/types" '(:iparse.types))
Test system asd:
#| This file is a part of iparse project. Copyright (c) 2017 Christopher Eames (chream) (chream@gmx.com) |#
(in-package :cl-user) (defpackage iparse-test-asd (:use :cl :asdf)) (in-package :iparse-test-asd)
(defsystem iparse-test :author "Christopher Eames (chream)" :license "" :depends-on (:iparse :prove) :components ((:module "t" :serial t :components ((:file "utils") (:test-file "utils-test") (:test-file "read-single-test-byte") (:test-file "read-single-test-sequence") (:test-file "read-single-test-composite") (:test-file "read-single-test-class") (:test-file "byte") (:test-file "macro") (:module "new" :serial t :components ((:test-file "basic-tests")))))) :description "Test system for iparse"
:defsystem-depends-on (:prove-asdf) :perform (test-op :after (op c) (funcall (intern #.(string :run-test-system) :prove-asdf) c) (asdf:clear-system c)))
Christopher
On 18 Oct 2017, at 15:05, Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
Can you anonymize it and send it? Or extract a minimal failure case? I can't reproduce at home, nor imagine what could be happening.
Anton, could you test the syntax-control branch with cl-test-grid, and grep the results for expansions of the format string "Computing just-done stamp in plan ~S for action ~S, but dependency ~S wasn't done yet!" ?
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Mathematics is as little a science as grammar is a language. — Ernst Mayr
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, 08:11 Stas Boukarev stassats@gmail.com wrote:
It's a work file, can't publish it. But it's just a defsystem with depends-on and components.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:46 PM Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
It's hard to tell without seeing the .asd file. The message says that you completed the load-op of the system, but somehow you never did the define-op of the system (the new action that tracks the loading of .asd files so that defsystem-depends-on can be properly staged).
Can you tell us more about the "non-complicated" features that you use? Do you follow the "best practices" document? https://github.com/fare/asdf/blob/master/doc/best_practices.md
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Don't forget your daily prayer to Baah-kup, the God of data storage and recovery!
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Stas Boukarev stassats@gmail.com wrote:
More new warnings from ASDF 3.3, this time I have no idea what it means.
WARNING: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action (ASDF/LISP-ACTION:LOAD-OP "system"), but dependency (ASDF/FIND-SYSTEM:DEFINE-OP
"system") wasn't done yet!
The .asd file is not public, but it looks perfectly normal without using any complicated features.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Chream iz chream33@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I am also getting this error when trying to run (asdf:test-system ....). It is also not finding the test-files but that might be an but in the prove package?
:defsystem-depends-on (:prove-asdf) :perform (test-op :after (op c) (funcall (intern #.(string :run-test-system) :prove-asdf) c) (asdf:clear-system c)))
There is your culprit: clear-system should NEVER be called within perform. It's removing the rug under ASDF as it's running -- very BAD, especially if there are many build phases. Unhappily, prove and other prove-based system skeletons (e.g. from caveman) have made this pattern popular. I sent patches to prove & al. at least six months ago, and wrote about this anti-pattern in my "best_practices" document, but I suppose the message didn't go around yet. Maybe I should make it an error for clear-system to be called from within an active asdf-session?
Stas, if you also use clear-system this way, you also lose for that reason.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things, you just get used to them. — John von Neumann (1903-1957)
So is this done so that prove can damage its internal state while testing? So that you need to force the tests to reload if you want to rerun?
If so, can't the same objective be achieved more cleanly by adding a special method for OPERATION-DONE-P on PROVE's TEST-FILE class?
On 18 Oct 2017, at 8:41, Faré wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Chream iz chream33@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I am also getting this error when trying to run (asdf:test-system ....). It is also not finding the test-files but that might be an but in the prove package?
:defsystem-depends-on (:prove-asdf) :perform (test-op :after (op c) (funcall (intern #.(string :run-test-system) :prove-asdf) c) (asdf:clear-system c)))
There is your culprit: clear-system should NEVER be called within perform. It's removing the rug under ASDF as it's running -- very BAD, especially if there are many build phases. Unhappily, prove and other prove-based system skeletons (e.g. from caveman) have made this pattern popular. I sent patches to prove & al. at least six months ago, and wrote about this anti-pattern in my "best_practices" document, but I suppose the message didn't go around yet. Maybe I should make it an error for clear-system to be called from within an active asdf-session?
Stas, if you also use clear-system this way, you also lose for that reason.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things, you just get used to them. — John von Neumann (1903-1957)
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
So is this done so that prove can damage its internal state while testing? So that you need to force the tests to reload if you want to rerun?
If so, can't the same objective be achieved more cleanly by adding a special method for OPERATION-DONE-P on PROVE's TEST-FILE class?
Yes and yes.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothing can beat teamwork. — Edward Abbey
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
There is your culprit: clear-system should NEVER be called within perform. It's removing the rug under ASDF as it's running -- very BAD, especially if there are many build phases. Unhappily, prove and other prove-based system skeletons (e.g. from caveman) have made this pattern popular. I sent patches to prove & al. at least six months ago, and wrote about this anti-pattern in my "best_practices" document, but I suppose the message didn't go around yet. Maybe I should make it an error for clear-system to be called from within an active asdf-session?
I see 97 mentions of clear-system in .asd files in quicklisp, so obviously I wasn't thorough in chasing these mentions 6 months ago, and I shouldn't make that an error until all these mentions are fixed. But maybe it's possible to issue a warning? Oh well.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org "Never ascribe to malice that which is caused by greed and ignorance." — Cal Keegan
Can we issue a STYLE-WARNING, with an explanation for the likely explanation (inappropriate use of CLEAR-SYSTEM, possibly related to PROVE)? I figure we are more likely to get compliance if people understand what's wrong.
On 18 Oct 2017, at 8:48, Faré wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
There is your culprit: clear-system should NEVER be called within perform. It's removing the rug under ASDF as it's running -- very BAD, especially if there are many build phases. Unhappily, prove and other prove-based system skeletons (e.g. from caveman) have made this pattern popular. I sent patches to prove & al. at least six months ago, and wrote about this anti-pattern in my "best_practices" document, but I suppose the message didn't go around yet. Maybe I should make it an error for clear-system to be called from within an active asdf-session?
I see 97 mentions of clear-system in .asd files in quicklisp, so obviously I wasn't thorough in chasing these mentions 6 months ago, and I shouldn't make that an error until all these mentions are fixed. But maybe it's possible to issue a warning? Oh well.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org "Never ascribe to malice that which is caused by greed and ignorance." — Cal Keegan
No clear-system in sight, everything is declarative.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:42 PM Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Chream iz chream33@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I am also getting this error when trying to run (asdf:test-system
....).
It is also not finding the test-files but that might be an but in the
prove
package?
:defsystem-depends-on (:prove-asdf) :perform (test-op :after (op c) (funcall (intern #.(string :run-test-system) :prove-asdf) c) (asdf:clear-system c)))
There is your culprit: clear-system should NEVER be called within perform. It's removing the rug under ASDF as it's running -- very BAD, especially if there are many build phases. Unhappily, prove and other prove-based system skeletons (e.g. from caveman) have made this pattern popular. I sent patches to prove & al. at least six months ago, and wrote about this anti-pattern in my "best_practices" document, but I suppose the message didn't go around yet. Maybe I should make it an error for clear-system to be called from within an active asdf-session?
Stas, if you also use clear-system this way, you also lose for that reason.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things, you just get used to them. — John von Neumann (1903-1957)
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stas Boukarev stassats@gmail.com wrote:
No clear-system in sight, everything is declarative.
Do you depend on another system that uses clear-system? Can you tell us anything about what you or some of your dependnecies might be doing?
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org In the long run, John Maynard Keynes is dead. — John Perich
-
Chream iz -
Faré -
Robert Goldman -
Stas Boukarev