Summary
The user describes a directory structure with a file located at /dir1/Earthfile
. They note that calling Earthly with earthly dir1+test
fails, while earthly ./dir1+test
works. The user questions whether this behavior is intentional, as it seems inconsistent with common expectations, citing that a command like cat dir1/Earthfile
is valid.
vlad
Yes.. it's intentional. It's mainly because earthly needs to distinguish between a local disk reference (./foo/bar+something
) vs URL reference (<http://foo.com/bar+something|foo.com/bar+something>
) vs an import reference (IMPORT <reference> AS foo
and then using foo+something
)
joshua.gilman
Suppose I have this directory structure:
• /
• /dir1/Earthfile
If I call Earthly with:
earthly dir1+test
It fails to evaluate the path. Only with the following does it work:
earthly ./dir1+test
Is this intentional? It seems to differ from the common expectation. For example, this is valid:
cat dir1/Earthfile