--cache-ignore behavior isn't the same as invalidate before

[wisechengyi]

With the removal of invalidate (2d4e617#diff-0295a620e939c7397353c955d452ae25), there is no good way to force a task to recheck for cache anymore after a successfully run because everything is validated. This is important because sometimes we need to make sure a task will hit the cache with invalidation, whereas the alternative clean-all will wipe out a lot of other info under .pants.d/ along with pants server content.

I'd like to propose to add it back. @stuhood @jsirois @benjyw, thoughts?

[stuhood]

I think that for the purposes of finding caching bugs, and for pants Task implementors, clean-all is sufficient, and invalidate is too challenging for an end user to use correctly.

Also, invalidate will stop making sense as more tasks are ported to the new engine.

[jsirois]

And if you want invalidate back, that's just alias pants-invalidate='rm -r .pants.d/build_invalidator'.

[benjyw]

I wouldn't be opposed to rearranging directory names under ./pants.d/build_invalidator and in the cache so that it's easier to selectively delete them if you're testing invalidation/caching behavior. But I wouldn't expose invalidate to the end user again.

[stuhood]

I also think that incorporating some target awareness into clean-all would be useful, as I'm sure people expect that that works.

[benjyw]

I.e., selective cleaning? `./pants clean <target>` ?

…

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Stu Hood ***@***.***> wrote: I also think that incorporating some target awareness into clean-all would be useful, as I'm sure people expect that that works. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5674 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAfS_NHa9WqViZ9Y456HezYPnAQGYGhLks5tm7XegaJpZM4TLV5F> .

[stuhood]

Yea, basically. Although I think it would be good to make more progress on #4769 in order to figure out what that would actually mean, and not implement something that we immediately need to break in order to have a sane UX there.

[benjyw]

That should be a new goal called `clean` then. The whole point of the name `clean-all` was to emphasize that everything gets cleaned... :)

…

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Stu Hood ***@***.***> wrote: Yea, basically. Although I think it would be good to make more progress on #4769 <#4769> in order to figure out what that would actually mean, and not implement something that we immediately need to break in order to have a sane UX there. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5674 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAfS_DLzWsc2ADQf0dK0ypSBa6mUojxLks5tm796gaJpZM4TLV5F> .

[Eric-Arellano]

Closing as this option was removed in Pants 2.0.