Skip to content
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

Resolver.constraints: Keep our_constraints before their_constraints #879

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 25, 2019

Conversation

andersk
Copy link
Contributor

@andersk andersk commented Aug 25, 2019

Not sure if this is the right solution, but this seems to fix #851, which was introduced when the source_ireqs.sort(key=str) operation was added in #837.

Cc: @jakevdp

Changelog-friendly one-liner: Try to fix resolution of requirements from Git URLs without -e.

Contributor checklist
  • Provided the tests for the changes.
  • Requested a review from another contributor.
  • Gave a clear one-line description in the PR (that the maintainers can add to CHANGELOG.md on release).
  • Assign the PR to an existing or new milestone for the target version (following Semantic Versioning).

@andersk
Copy link
Contributor Author

andersk commented Aug 25, 2019

Added a test case.

Not sure if this is the right solution, but this seems to fix jazzband#851,
which was introduced when the `source_ireqs.sort(key=str)` operation
was added in jazzband#837.

Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <[email protected]>
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 25, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #879 into master will decrease coverage by 0.21%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #879      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.05%   98.84%   -0.22%     
==========================================
  Files          35       35              
  Lines        2231     2159      -72     
  Branches      285      285              
==========================================
- Hits         2210     2134      -76     
- Misses         13       15       +2     
- Partials        8       10       +2
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
piptools/resolver.py 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
tests/test_resolver.py 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
tests/conftest.py 97.36% <100%> (-0.34%) ⬇️
piptools/repositories/pypi.py 92.55% <0%> (-2.27%) ⬇️
piptools/repositories/local.py 91.11% <0%> (-0.89%) ⬇️
piptools/scripts/sync.py 100% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
tests/test_writer.py 100% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
piptools/cache.py 100% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
tests/test_cli_compile.py 100% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
... and 12 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4bfa887...25d7aa4. Read the comment docs.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 25, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #879 into master will decrease coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #879      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.05%   99.05%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          35       35              
  Lines        2231     2230       -1     
  Branches      285      285              
==========================================
- Hits         2210     2209       -1     
  Misses         13       13              
  Partials        8        8
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
piptools/resolver.py 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
tests/test_resolver.py 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
tests/conftest.py 97.7% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4bfa887...25d7aa4. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@atugushev atugushev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@andersk thank you! Much appreciated 👍 Let's wait for codecov report then and merge this if coverage is okay.

@andersk
Copy link
Contributor Author

andersk commented Aug 25, 2019

Cool—are we waiting for something other than the report posted above?

@atugushev
Copy link
Member

Cool—are we waiting for something other than the report posted above?

There is a lack of two checks from codecov: coverage for the patch and the project. Codecov is glitching. Let's close and reopen issue.

@atugushev atugushev closed this Aug 25, 2019
@atugushev atugushev reopened this Aug 25, 2019
@atugushev
Copy link
Member

Coverage is fine 👍

@atugushev
Copy link
Member

pip-tools v4.1.0 is released.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3.9.0 pip-compile gets confused by GitHub installs without -e
2 participants