Skip to content

Conversation

@123mpozzi
Copy link
Contributor

@123mpozzi 123mpozzi commented Dec 10, 2025

Description

Right now, when the .env file does not exist, yarn boostrap script will exit prompting you to copy it from .env.example and compile it.
We can actually remove one step by automatically copying the example file, and only prompt the user to compile it.

Checklist

  • 🗒 CHANGELOG entry - no need since this is a QoL change

@123mpozzi 123mpozzi self-assigned this Dec 10, 2025
@123mpozzi 123mpozzi marked this pull request as ready for review December 10, 2025 10:49
Copy link
Contributor

@rolandkakonyi rolandkakonyi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not a fan of this. If you ignore the warning you will have a non-working project.
What is the problem with bootstrap failing when you don't have the env set up?

@123mpozzi
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm not a fan of this. If you ignore the warning you will have a non-working project. What is the problem with bootstrap failing when you don't have the env set up?

The warning is not ignored, it is still there, but the file is created automatically.
So the non-working project is still guarded against:

BITMOVIN_PLAYER_LICENSE_KEY is not set in example/.env. Please follow the setup instructions in example/README.md.

Copy link
Contributor

@rolandkakonyi rolandkakonyi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I still don't get the benefit of these changes.
The original error message prompted you to copy the file.
We now auto-copy but it still fails and is no different functionally than before.

Why is this better than before?

@123mpozzi
Copy link
Contributor Author

I still don't get the benefit of these changes. The original error message prompted you to copy the file. We now auto-copy but it still fails and is no different functionally than before.

Why is this better than before?

It saves you the copy operation, it's not a crazy change, but I think that's already more convenient.
I don't see the value in prompting the user to copy the file when we can already do that

@123mpozzi 123mpozzi marked this pull request as draft December 10, 2025 18:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants