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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Allow --justfile without --working-directory #340

Closed
casey opened this issue Aug 15, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

Allow --justfile without --working-directory #340

casey opened this issue Aug 15, 2018 · 3 comments
Labels
enhancement good first issue

Comments

@casey
Copy link
Owner

casey commented Aug 15, 2018

Currently, the --justfile requires the --working-directory flag to also be passed. I think I did this out of an overabundance of caution. It should be changed so that the working directory defaults to same directory the justfile passed with --justfile is in.

This is a great first issue ^__^
@smonami smonami mentioned this issue Sep 17, 2018
Closed
smonami added a commit to smonami/just that referenced this issue Sep 21, 2018
@smonami
casey#340 Allow justfile without workdir
5adf44c
smonami added a commit to smonami/just that referenced this issue Oct 18, 2018
@smonami
casey#340 derive absolute path for working_directory_option
07fa147
smonami added a commit to smonami/just that referenced this issue Nov 14, 2018
@smonami
casey#340 integration test for making --WORKING-DIRECTORY optional
7f41ec4
@mattg-sigsci
Copy link

is this done now? looks like there are a few commits and a test to verify that --working-directory is optional.

@casey
Copy link
Owner Author

casey commented Mar 8, 2019

The current test only checks that the flag is optional, it needs a test that verifies that the working directory when --working-directory isn't passed is correct, i.e. the same as the directory the justfile is in.

@casey casey mentioned this issue Mar 19, 2019
Closed
@casey
Copy link
Owner Author

casey commented Apr 8, 2019

This just landed in #392. I'm going to wait until #390 lands to cut a release, since it's super close.

@casey casey closed this as completed Apr 8, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement good first issue
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@casey @mattg-sigsci