[GRADLE-3258] Gradle doesn't report abbreviated task name as ambiguous when task name has numbers Created: 06/Mar/15 Updated: 16/Jan/17 Resolved: 16/Jan/17 |
|
Status: | Resolved |
Project: | Gradle |
Affects Version/s: | None |
Fix Version/s: | None |
Type: | Bug | ||
Reporter: | Sterling Greene | Assignee: | Unassigned |
Resolution: | Duplicate | Votes: | 2 |
Description |
Given this build file: build.gradle task unique1() task uniqueA() Running with this command-line should produce an ambiguous task selection error between unique1 and uniqueA. gradle unique Instead, we select unique1. Tested with 1.0, 2.0, 2.2.1 and master (2.4 nightly). |
Comments |
Comment by Stefan Neuhaus [ 11/Dec/15 ] |
It's not an issue with the numbers, but with the casing. Execute the following: gradle uni Also with the following build file without any numbers the task unique is unambigously chosen: build.gradle task unique() task uniqueA() But when instead lowercasing the "A", the ambiguity is properly detected: build.gradle task unique1() task uniquea() Tested with master (2.11). |
Comment by Stefan Neuhaus [ 12/Dec/15 ] |
I am not sure what the expected behavior of the task name matching is. The User Guide is not very specific regarding this point (cf. 4.4. Task name abbreviation). But "NameMatcherTest" defines a couple of valuable test cases of which "prefersFullCamelCaseMatchOverCamelCasePrefix" seems to perfectly reflect this issue: @Test public void prefersFullCamelCaseMatchOverCamelCasePrefix() { assertMatches("sN", "someName", "someNameWithExtra"); assertMatches("name", "names", "nameWithExtra"); // reads like "gradlew name" only matches "names" of the tasks ["names", "nameWithExtra"] assertMatches("s_n", "some_name", "some_name_with_extra"); } Thus to me it looks like the behavior might be somewhat confusing, but at least seems to be in line with the specification. |
Comment by Benjamin Muschko [ 15/Nov/16 ] |
As announced on the Gradle blog we are planning to completely migrate issues from JIRA to GitHub. We intend to prioritize issues that are actionable and impactful while working more closely with the community. Many of our JIRA issues are inactionable or irrelevant. We would like to request your help to ensure we can appropriately prioritize JIRA issues you’ve contributed to. Please confirm that you still advocate for your JIRA issue before December 10th, 2016 by:
We look forward to collaborating with you more closely on GitHub. Thank you for your contribution to Gradle! |
Comment by Martin d'Anjou [ 15/Nov/16 ] |
Problem as in description still exists with Gradle 3.2. |
Comment by Sterling Greene [ 16/Jan/17 ] |