Redesign safeguard properties #16
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
After the issues that have been identified concerning the propagation of
CMAKE_MODULE_PATH(in #15), I realized that oursafeguard_properties()utility function and its applied use for safeguarding theBUILD_TESTINGoption, was no longer a viable solution.This PR redesigns
safeguard_properties()to be a macro, instead of a function. Doing so ensures that whatever callback we execute can modify any property, such as theCMAKE_MODULE_PATH, without being encapsulated within a function's variable scope. Now, any 3rd party dependency that we define should not be affected, as is the case when using CPM.References