-
TL;DR: Why is it a warning, rather than an error, and should it stay that way? Issue #17324 discusses some inconsistency for a specific warning type - an un-inferred dependency. For example, I can make a typo when adding an I'd expect an un-inferred dependency to produce an error, since (I imagine) an un-inferred dependency can have negative effects on the end result like missing dependencies in an artifact (like a Pex or a Wheel) or missing a key for invalidation (thus hurting the correctness guarantee). That might be especially true when a package is technically optional and has a side-effect by simply being installed. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 2 comments 4 replies
-
For context: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'm not convinced it is an error in every case - you could, for example, be importing from a package that you know is available at runtime. Making this an error would probably require support for dependency scopes, so we can express the idea of a "provided" dependency. But allowing repos to opt-in (or out, eventually) of this being an error sounds like a good idea. All that said, I'm not sure I see the correctness issue? If you had a typo, for example, then when you fix the typo that file is invalidated. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
I'm not convinced it is an error in every case - you could, for example, be importing from a package that you know is available at runtime. Making this an error would probably require support for dependency scopes, so we can express the idea of a "provided" dependency.
But allowing repos to opt-in (or out, eventually) of this being an error sounds like a good idea.
All that said, I'm not sure I see the correctness issue? If you had a typo, for example, then when you fix the typo that file is invalidated.