-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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.
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
fix(default-flatpaks): Flatpak IDs input in the last module definition overwrites the 1st one #231
Comments
I'd file this under #146. I'll post a couple notes there and then close this issue. IMO the refactoring wouldn't be that big of a job so it doesn't make sense to fix the current iteration with duct tape. |
I think the problem is in
Using something like this instead should work:
Edit: It does work on my image. So if you reconsider pushing a duct tape solution before refactoring the whole module, then this might be it. |
I believe this change would make the first configuration always take precedence over the later ones, right @lorduskordus ? This would not improve the situation, as for example overriding the |
I'm not sure if I understood, but from my testing:
|
Ah, maybe I misunderstood this. I'll ping @fiftydinar for good measure. |
He's right. Good catch. I saw his reply earlier but forgot about it. I made a PR: |
Some users faced the issue when trying to include shared flatpaks for all of their images in multi-image setup.
The issue is that the last module definition in the recipe overwrites the 1st one, so only input from the last module definition is taking the place.
That should not happen. Every flatpak ID input from other module definitions should be added to the list, instead of overwriting it.
Here's the example:
Multi image example:
recipe.yml:
shared.yml:
Depending on the recipe order, either of these 2 scenarios happen:
recipe.yml
flatpaks are installing, butshared.yml
flatpaks are notshared.yml
flatpaks are installing, butrecipe.yml
flatpaks are notsingle image recipe.yml example:
This module needs to be refactored, so this issue should be taken in mind when doing that.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: