-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 209
refactor!: replace jinja2-ansible-filters
by jinja2-copier-extension
#2039
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Draft
sisp
wants to merge
1
commit into
copier-org:master
Choose a base branch
from
sisp:refactor/replace-jinja2-ansible-filters
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMHO we should put lower bounds only.
This way we leave downstream packagers to do their work in a more easy way. On our side, we still supply the nix packages for whoever wants officially supported pinnings. Or they can reuse our poetry.lock in any other way.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hm, but we don't test the behavior of Jinja filters from
jinja2-copier-extension
in Copier, so if we change a filter in an incompatible way without pinning in our manifest, the identical Copier version will behave differently when installed before and after that release ofjinja2-copier-extension
.Concretely, I'm planning to revise some API inconsistencies, that I retained from
jinja2-ansible-filters
for backwards compatibility, injinja2-copier-extension
in a future release. For example:Renaming
regex
topattern
may be a breaking change in case somebody passes the pattern as a keyword argument. And makingmultiline
andignorecase
keyword-only arguments may be breaking in case somebody passes values as positional arguments. If we release these changes as v0.2.0 and use a lower bound in ourpyproject.toml
then next time somebody re-installs Copier (e.g., even just
pipx run copier
with an expired package cache suffices) a previously working Copier template may suddenly fail to work.Isn't the difference in this case that the Jinja filters registered by
jinja2-copier-extensions.CopierExtension
are part of Copier's public (Jinja) API, whereas the public API of other dependencies is used merely internally in Copier?