Interested in implementing feature, looking for initial feedback #2503
-
|
I'd like to implement #864, but wanted to do an initial feasibility/maintainer check. The simplest solution I could think of would to be make Alternatively, I could try to use Would one of these be preferred? Is this even something that the maintainers are interested in including? I also know there's an effort to migrate the go code to rust, so if it'd be best to wait until after that's complete please let me know! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
|
So, there is a much easier method to do this on the input side, similar to the way we do You'd make that change here: This allows specifying multiple Once you've received the input it's a little bit interesting in how that gets applied to |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks for the tips! This ended up not being too bad to get sorted. I've opened a PR here with what I ended up doing: #2551 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
So, there is a much easier method to do this on the input side, similar to the way we do
--filter:https://github.com/vercel/turbo/blob/60f143e58735fa9b846035763ff9653ca4d957fd/cli/internal/scope/scope.go#L71
You'd make that change here:
https://github.com/vercel/turbo/blob/60f143e58735fa9b846035763ff9653ca4d957fd/cli/internal/prune/prune.go#L28
This allows specifying multiple
--scopearguments.Once you've received the input it's a little bit interesting in how that gets applied to
prune. @chris-olszewski will be the person who can give more details if you get stuck!