change --reload-extra-file option to get multiple files at once

[firekim2]

If I want to reload when templates changes, I should do like this right now:
--reload-extra-file path/to/templates/file1 --reload-extra-file path/to/templates/file2 ......
add every file by file.
I changed config.py to get files like:
--reload-extra-file path/to/templates/*
or
--reload-extra-file path/to/templates/file1 path/to/templates/file2

[tilgovi]

Is this the correct default?

[tilgovi]

@firekim2 bump on this question.

[benoitc]

bump firekim2

[firekim2]

So really sorry for not following up about this for this long time.
Yes, it is. Since, we are changing the type to str, and parse it. it should be the empty string.

[tilgovi]

I just reviewed the ArgumentParser documentation and tried this a bit in my REPL. Using nargs='+' causes the value to a be a list, so I think we want [] as the default.

[tilgovi]

I like this PR. I'm sorry I missed it before. I want to be sure it works correctly and haven't had a chance to test. My argparse knowledge is weak, but I've been reading the docs lately. If it works correctly, I support it.

[tilgovi]

The other thing I would check is that everything works correctly when this is the last flag. In other words, I would hope that it does not eat the required Python app module argument.

gunicorn --reload-extrafile file1 file2 app should still work.

[trivedigaurav]

This is useful. Thanks!

[tilgovi]

@firekim2 do you have time or interest to rebase this?

[firekim2]

@firekim2 do you have time or interest to rebase this?

Yes, I have. Let me try it.

[firekim2]

@tilgovi rebased it

[benoitc]

@firekim2 thanks! there i still one last question to answer but otherise the change is OK for me :)

[franekmagiera]

Hi,
stumbled upon this PR while trying to figure out a solution to #1643.

As for your question regarding the default value - I tested "" and []and they both work as expected. This is because the Setting class in its set method assigns the value that is returned from the validator function - and the validator returns [] if the passed value is falsy - both "" and [] are, so there is no error.

Argparse by default treats all arguments as strings so having "" as default makes sense in my opinion. On the other hand, having [] does not rely on the validator doing the checking and substitution.

This also solves #1643 because argparse.ArgumentParser's parse_args methods resolves wildcards such as *json.

@tilgovi @firekim2

[jgod]

It's been sitting around for a couple years. What does this need to go forward? Just a review from @benoitc @tilgovi or waiting on action from @firekim2 ?

[OrionReed]

Is there a blocker for this PR? Would really love to have this, or alternatively some kind of workaround as this covers quite a common case.

[nvnieuwk]

Any updates on this?

[foobarbecue]

Please merge!

[manolomono]

It's necessary when we pass a directory that is applied recursively

[firekim2]

Anything I can do for merging this?
And Sorry guys somehow alerts went into spam, and I only used GIthub Enterprise for a while!

[wrabit]

Anything specifically holding this up? Would love to see this functionality merged

[ShlomoCode]

In the meantime, you can use a little bash script:

gunicorn app.wsgi --reload $(find templates -type f -name '*.html' -exec echo --reload-extra-file {} \;)

It tracks changes in every html file in the templates folder (or its subfolder)

[tilgovi]

I've pushed a version of this to #3124, preserving backwards compatibility and adding tests. @firekim2, I've kept you as the commit author and added myself as co-author. If you have a chance to review, that'd be great.

Thanks for your patience on this!

[mpoletto]

The documentation can cause confusion about the theme while doing reference of reload_extra_files (on plural) for the singular parameter --reload-extra-file.

[mfxa]

Great suggestion! In my case specifically for reloading on changes to template files, CSS, JS and such.

[benoitc]

no activity since awhile. closing feel free to create a new ticket if needed. Thanks for the patch!

[mfxa]

Is this patch being applied, or the one in #3124 ?