Pep440 version consistency #225
Open
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I have refactored some of the cli unit tests to check results from test and update (using --dry). I refactored the implementation so that test uses the same code to translate to pep440 as update.
However, I ran into a problem with this approach where some (most?) possible v1 patterns don't have a useful mapping to a pep440-compliant format, resulting in no handling whatsoever for such patterns. I note that using the {pep440_version} replacement pattern does not seem to work in these cases either. For now I have worked around this by falling back to the old pep440 handling in this specific case, which at least means those v1 patterns can be used without the {pep440_version} replacement pattern.
Ultimately I chose not to change the handling of update, because I expect that current users would be relying more heavily on those results, and changing those results is most likely to upset a few people. Please take a look and let me know your thoughts. I am interested to get a few opinions on this.