Instead, fail the issue as 'needs more information', and go find that information if you don't have it- it's everyone's responsibility to create clear issues. If anything is unclear, such as a blank issue with a very vague title- then do not proceed to coding. In this scenario you're about to work on a new issue, an issue has been created, and the issue number is 123. Here's a walk through of the entire process: Such linking is mandatory because a reviewer must be able to relate the new code to the issue being fixed. This gives you an issue number to use later on, and helps you & others quickly understand which issue a branch and commits relate to.Ī branch, commits, (and the eventual pull request) are easily related to their issue(s) because you should name branches according to the issue number, and make commits Always start with an issue, not codeĬontributions, changes, feature requests, & bug reports, must start with creating an issue, even if a tiny change. Tools cannot save you, the following disciplines can, and everyone can do it- it just relies on these effective communication strategies. Grind to a halt and are left burning time & money away with 'issue management synchronisation tooling'. Projects without standard procedures around issue creation and connecting that to git branching don't succeed, they eventually Not sure which issue the pull request is fixing? Scared of a merge conflict? Confused about rebasing? Struggled to find a link to something? Don't have enough context? Not had enough information about an issue/bug? Like git branching, naming branches etc Sidenote- why does all this matter & why should I care about issues, git and branching? But! When you do, I hope this helps.I would like to ask for an explanation about git best practices. This is exactly why git is so critical! These types of mismatches happen regularly and having a strategy for fixing it when it does happen is the only way to deal. Just know that it may change a significant quantity of things in your codebase. This is one of the very rare scenarios where you may have no other choice. If you’re a return user to my blog, you probably have seen me urge avoidance of a general composer update. Sometimes (but not always) this results in a much cleaner process and the merge conflicts aren’t as bad (or present at all).ĭeleting the composer.lock file and running composer update can also be attempted as a last ditch effort. upstream/develop) and cherry pick your work into that new branch. Instead of rebasing, instead create a new branch off of your upstream integration branch (e.g. In this situation, here are a few recommendations: In more common situations, unfortunately, the lock file sometimes has so many different hash changes in it that it’s nearly impossible to straighten out the changes. Now you can continue your rebase with a valid composer.lock file! How to Fix a Comple issue Run this command: $ composer update -lockĬomposer will automatically regenerate the proper content hash. Pick one of the two content-hash values (it doesn’t matter which) Get rid of the Git confusion (the HEAD, = and << characters, and everything else on those lines. The above screenshot represents about the simplest possible example. In fact, I work pretty hard when I’m the architect to limit how many people are changing composer files at the same time just to avoid issues like this! How to Fix a Simple Issue the composer.lock file is very susceptible to this sort of issue. Unfortunately, because of all the hashes, commit strings, etc. It is generated based on your requirements in composer.json. The composer.lock file is how Composer stores all of the hashes for your specific versions of requirements. So first we’ll talk about how to fix a “simple” problem and then we’ll dig into more complex ones. Now, in this example I’m really lucky because the only thing in the composer.lock file that is funky is the content-hash right at the top.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |