{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitwalker/exrm/issues/258","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitwalker/exrm/issues/258/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitwalker/exrm/issues/258/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitwalker/exrm/issues/258/events","html_url":"https://github.com/bitwalker/exrm/issues/258","id":119699852,"number":258,"title":"Any way to skip the check if a particular application is included?","user":{"login":"alco","id":207748,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/207748?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/alco","html_url":"https://github.com/alco","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/alco/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/alco/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/alco/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/alco/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/alco/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/alco/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/alco/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/alco/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/alco/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitwalker/exrm/labels/enhancement","name":"enhancement","color":"bfe5bf"},{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitwalker/exrm/labels/question","name":"question","color":"cc317c"}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":{"login":"bitwalker","id":955793,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/955793?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker","html_url":"https://github.com/bitwalker","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"milestone":null,"comments":7,"created_at":"2015-12-01T11:45:13Z","updated_at":"2015-12-01T16:43:48Z","closed_at":null,"body":"I have a project with a bunch of dev-only and test-only dependencies. When I run `mix release`, it shows a warning that some applications are not included in the list of `:applications` and waits for a confirmation to proceed.\r\n\r\nI know there's a `--no-confirm-missing` flag, but I'm looking for a way to mark individual deps as excluded from the release so that exrm doesn't complain about them. Ideally I would like to run `mix release` without the `--no-confirm-missing` flag on CI. That way, if I add any dependency in the future and forget to include it in the release, I will want `exrm` to complain and the CI run to fail. However, that can only be achieved if there's a way to exclude certain dependencies that I specifically don't want to include in the release."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitwalker/exrm/issues/comments/161026662","html_url":"https://github.com/bitwalker/exrm/issues/258#issuecomment-161026662","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitwalker/exrm/issues/258","id":161026662,"user":{"login":"bitwalker","id":955793,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/955793?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker","html_url":"https://github.com/bitwalker","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bitwalker/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-12-01T16:43:48Z","updated_at":"2015-12-01T16:43:48Z","body":"The reason why I don't like something along the lines of `skipped_applications` is because the warning presented actually isn't about the applications per se, but more specifically about dependencies which contain applications which haven't been explicitly added to the release (via `applications` or `included_applications`). By making the flag for disabling the warning an option on the dependency, it maps much more cleanly to the use case for the warning in the first place: You've added a dependency, and either forgot to add it to applications/included_applications, which is what you want to be warned about, *or*, you added a dependency and don't want to ever be warned about it because you know the warning is spurious or irrelevant for whatever reason, in which case, you want to ignore not the application being warned about, but the dependency generating the warning, because it's likely that the dependency itself might have transitive dependencies which themselves may generate warnings.\r\n\r\nFor your example use case, it seems to me that it makes sense to bring `edown` into your `mix.exs` as an explicit dependency, and add `warn_missing: true`.\r\n\r\nI'm open to being swayed on this of course, but right now it just feels wrong adding another `*_applications` setting in mix.exs, when the issue being solved is that people aren't using the settings that exist properly in the first place due to confusion about them."}}