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
Add --use-static-frameworks lint option #9632
Conversation
11c1587
to
8ef07e8
Compare
8ef07e8
to
6b1103c
Compare
Rebased |
I continue to feel that the proliferation of these options is making things much worse for maintainers imo but I don't see a clear way on how to manage this effectively. Basically an author can now publish a pod under very specific set of options (modular headers, use libraries and now static frameworks) which means a consumer of a pod must somehow know that the pod works only works in a very specific way. None of this information is transcribed or communicated anywhere right now. Do you have any thoughts or ideas about this? |
@dnkoutso I'd be fine to remove the option from push. The reason I want this option is that the boat has already sailed on these options available in Podfile's and it would be a nice for authors to have an easy way to set up CI to test all the options before publishing. Specifically, I'd like to use it here for example - https://github.com/firebase/firebase-ios-sdk/blob/master/.github/workflows/storage.yml#L95 |
6b1fb65
to
bc53d58
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with @dnkoutso on the proliferation of options but I think we've somewhat designed ourselves into a corner here, and without these options the lint commands become much less useful
@@ -91,10 +99,6 @@ To install release candidates run `[sudo] gem install cocoapods --pre` | |||
|
|||
##### Enhancements | |||
|
|||
* Option to lint a specified set of test_specs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is this correct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, #9392 is in master and not 1.9.1
Also fix a bad merge in the CHANGELOG.md