Re: Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Faré]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Stas Boukarev  wrote:
> The systems working on older asdf versions is wrong?
>
Some of them might be. Defining systems with names not based on the
.asd filename was never fully supported. In earlier versions of ASDF,
it could lead to the system not being findable by its name, to its
aliasing another system, to its being aliased by another system, or
before 2.x, to throwing ASDF in an infinite loop as two systems
aliased each other. It's just that ASDF then failed to properly detect
the situation and warn the user. Now ASDF tries to do the right thing
for secondary systems that follow a sensible naming pattern, in a way
that actually works and is supported (and backward compatible), and to
warn when it sees secondary systems that fail to follow the supported
pattern.

Now, I am not saying ASDF 3.3 is without fault. First, this is all out
of my cache, so I cannot swear what should or what shouldn't be the
expected behavior in this case. What I *can* say is that this case was
intended to be somewhat supported on a best effort basis but
deprecated.

Still, whether it should work better than that or not, it is *also* a
bug that ASDF failed to detect the situation to then either make it
work or at least offer a more helpful error or warning. Mea culpa.

In summary: your use case was never fully supported and is now
explicitly deprecated, and it is recommend to rename your systems to
fit the supported convention. ASDF is still at fault for not behaving
better.

PS: I don't currently intend to spend too many cycles on this
particular issue, but as usual can be convinced otherwise.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• http://fare.tunes.org
Multiple instances of a same hacker with different context in his mental
cache count as multiple hackers wrt documentation and testing needs.


> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:48 PM Faré  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Stas Boukarev 
>> wrote:
>> > ASDF keeps inventing good reasons all the time...
>> >
>> Indeed , "inventing" in the original sense of the term: finding a
>> preexisting thing that no one suspected existed, but that was there of
>> all times. See my post about a previous occurrence of the pattern with
>> ASDF 3.0: https://fare.livejournal.com/176185.html — ASDF 3.3 was also
>> fixing a bug, doing it right, and discovering that some things had
>> been wrong all along.
>>

Re: Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Faré]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Stas Boukarev  wrote:
> The systems working on older asdf versions is wrong?
>
Some of them might be. Defining systems with names not based on the
.asd filename was never fully supported. In all versions of ASDF, it
could lead to the system not being findable by its name, or its
aliasing another system, or being aliased by another system, or
throwing ASDF in an infinite loop as two systems aliased each other.
It's just that ASDF then failed to properly detect the situation and
warn the user. Now it tries to do the right thing, in a way that
actually works and is supported.

Now, I am not saying ASDF 3.3 is without fault. First, this is all out
of my cache, so I cannot swear what should or what shouldn't be the
expected behavior in this case. What I *can* say is that this case was
intended to be somewhat supported on a best effort basis but
deprecated.

Whether it should work better than that or not, however, it is still
*also* a bug in ASDF that the situation wasn't detected with a more
helpful error or warning being offered.

In summary: your use case was never fully supported and is now
explicitly deprecated. ASDF is still at fault for not providing a
better error behavior.

PS: I don't currently intend to spend too many cycles on this
particular issue, but as usual can be convinced otherwise.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• http://fare.tunes.org
Multiple instances of a same hacker with different context in his mental
cache count as multiple hackers wrt documentation and testing needs.


> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:48 PM Faré  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Stas Boukarev 
>> wrote:
>> > ASDF keeps inventing good reasons all the time...
>> >
>> Indeed , "inventing" in the original sense of the term: finding a
>> preexisting thing that no one suspected existed, but that was there of
>> all times. See my post about a previous occurrence of the pattern with
>> ASDF 3.0: https://fare.livejournal.com/176185.html — ASDF 3.3 was also
>> fixing a bug, doing it right, and discovering that some things had
>> been wrong all along.
>>

Re: Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Stas Boukarev]

The systems working on older asdf versions is wrong?

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:48 PM Faré  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Stas Boukarev 
> wrote:
> > ASDF keeps inventing good reasons all the time...
> >
> Indeed , "inventing" in the original sense of the term: finding a
> preexisting thing that no one suspected existed, but that was there of
> all times. See my post about a previous occurrence of the pattern with
> ASDF 3.0: https://fare.livejournal.com/176185.html — ASDF 3.3 was also
> fixing a bug, doing it right, and discovering that some things had
> been wrong all along.
>
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection•
> http://fare.tunes.org
> A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of
> five.
> — Groucho Marx
>

Re: Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Faré]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Stas Boukarev  wrote:
> ASDF keeps inventing good reasons all the time...
>
Indeed , "inventing" in the original sense of the term: finding a
preexisting thing that no one suspected existed, but that was there of
all times. See my post about a previous occurrence of the pattern with
ASDF 3.0: https://fare.livejournal.com/176185.html — ASDF 3.3 was also
fixing a bug, doing it right, and discovering that some things had
been wrong all along.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• http://fare.tunes.org
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
— Groucho Marx

Re: Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Stas Boukarev]

ASDF keeps inventing good reasons all the time...

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:43 PM Faré  wrote:

> Oh, is it a case where you're insisting on using a secondary system
> name that doesn't follow the convention B/A when the primary system is
> B ? That might explain it. There is also a warning against such a
> thing, and for good reason.
>
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection•
> http://fare.tunes.org
> Doing well is the result of doing good. That's what capitalism is all
> about.
> — Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Stas Boukarev 
> wrote:
> > cat b.asd
> > (defsystem A)
> >
> > (defsystem B
> >   :depends-on (A))
> >
> > (asdf:load-system 'b) is enough to trigger it.
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:51 PM Faré  wrote:
> >>
> >> See section 4 of the ASDF 3.3 paper at ILC 2017 for a quick overview:
> >> https://github.com/fare/asdf2017
> >>
> >> To support proper phase separation, ASDF has a new operation,
> >> define-op, that tracks the dependencies of loading a .asd file (i.e.
> >> other systems you operate on, e.g., via load-system or
> >> defsystem-depends-on, etc.)
> >>
> >> I don't know exactly what is your system A and how you use it, but
> >> apparently it's unhappy about depending on the primary system for
> >> define-op yet being earlier in the .asd file, so the other system
> >> hasn't been defined yet.
> >>
> >> Maybe ASDF should refrain from registering a dependency here between
> >> sibling systems. Or not. It was quite subtle to debug about a year
> >> ago, and it fell out of my working cache.
> >>
> >> Is there anything special you do between A and B except a :depends-on ?
> >>
> >> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection•
> >> http://fare.tunes.org
> >> You think war is economically beneficial? Then why share those benefits
> >> with
> >> dirty foreigners? Let's have a civil war — A war we're sure to win!
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Stas Boukarev 
> >> wrote:
> >> > It’s a regular depends-on, but why did it work before without
> problems?
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 18:32 Faré  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Stas Boukarev 
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > B is primary, but A has to be loaded before it. It precedes B, and
> B
> >> >> > depends
> >> >> > on it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> If it's a regular :depends-on, then B should be able to appear before
> >> >> A, and that should actually work better.
> >> >>
> >> >> If it's a :defsystem-depends-on, it used to be that A must be before
> >> >> B, but the new situation is that they have to be in separate files
> for
> >> >> define-op to work at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection•
> >> >> http://fare.tunes.org
> >> >> For ultimately, the most visible trait of a just man is to have no
> >> >> desire
> >> >> at all to rule others, and only want to rule himself. This decides
> >> >> everything. In other words, the worst people will rule. — Alain
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:23 PM Faré  wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Stas Boukarev <
> stass...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Looks like this happens because I have two systems in B.asd, A
> and
> >> >> >> > B,
> >> >> >> > and B
> >> >> >> > depends on A.
> >> >> >> Maybe changing the order of the two systems will help.
> >> >> >> Which is primary? Which depends on the other?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection•
> >> >> >> http://fare.tunes.org
> >> >> >> All honest people are welcome to come and live here.
> >> >> >> All dishonest people are welcome to come and die here.
> >> >> >> — Libertarian Open-Borders, Open-Skulls Policy
>

Re: Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Faré]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stas Boukarev  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• http://fare.tunes.org
In the long run, John Maynard Keynes is dead. — John Perich

Re: Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Stas Boukarev]

No clear-system in sight, everything is declarative.

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:42 PM Faré  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:25 AM, 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?
> >
> >
> >   :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•
> http://fare.tunes.org
> Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things,
> you just get used to them. — John von Neumann (1903-1957)
>
>

Re: Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Robert Goldman]

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  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• 
http://fare.tunes.org

Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things,
you just get used to them. — John von Neumann (1903-1957)

Re: Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Faré]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Faré  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• http://fare.tunes.org
"Never ascribe to malice that which is caused by greed and ignorance."
— Cal Keegan

Re: Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Faré]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:25 AM, 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?
>
>
>   :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• http://fare.tunes.org
Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things,
you just get used to them. — John von Neumann (1903-1957)

Re: Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Robert Goldman]

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) (chr...@gmx.com)
|#

#|
  Author: Christopher Eames (chream) (chr...@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) (chr...@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 <fah...@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• 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 <stass...@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 <fah...@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&

Re: Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Chream iz]

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) (chr...@gmx.com)
|#

#|
  Author: Christopher Eames (chream) (chr...@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) (chr...@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 <fah...@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• 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 <stass...@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 <fah...@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

Re: Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Faré]

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• 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 <stass...@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 <fah...@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• 
>> 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 <stass...@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.

Re: Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Stas Boukarev]

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 <fah...@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•
> 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 <stass...@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.
>

Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action

[Stas Boukarev]

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.