Handling --upgrade-strategy parameter for editable installs

[0bsearch]

Environment

• pip version: 19.1..1
• Python version: 3.7.1
• OS: linux 4.15

Description
Handling for simultaneously providing -Ue & --upgrade-strategy may be misleading.

How to Reproduce
Installing/upgrading package in editable mod with:
pip install -Ue --upgrade-strategy eager .

Output
-e is eager for path/url argument, in addition to that, seems that there's name clutch for handling such case, output is:
ERROR: --upgrade-strategy should either be a path to a local project or a VCS url beginning with svn+, git+, hg+, or bzr+

[pradyunsg]

Ah, you'd want to specify arguments/options differently. Right now, your invocation expands to:

pip install --upgrade --editable --upgrade-strategy eager .

However, editable expects an argument. A different invocation that will work:

pip install --upgrade --upgrade-strategy eager --editable .

Or even:

pip install -Ue . --upgrade-strategy eager

Cheers!

[0bsearch]

I know how it works and I know how to "work around". This is why I've noted the -e is eager for path param.

The issue is error message — problem with such invocation is definitely not "upgrade-strategy should either be a path to a local project or a VCS url".

Am I wrong here?

[pradyunsg]

Am I wrong here?

@3lnc No; I misunderstood what you were saying the first time. Thanks for the clarification. :)

Changing the language to {} is not a valid editable requirement, it should either be a path to a local project or a VCS URL (beginning with svn+, git+, hg+, or bzr+). will resolve that.

---

This issue is a good starting point for anyone who wants to help out with pip's development -- it's simple and the process of fixing this should be a good introduction to pip's development workflow.

[svjmtn]

Hi @pradyunsg , newbie here, I would like to take this up as my first issue!

Is it okay to simply test like so in constructors.py within the parse_editable() function?

if editable_req == '--upgrade-strategy':
        raise InstallationError(
            '{} is not a valid editable requirement '
            'it should either be a path to a local project or a VCS URL '
            '(beginning with svn+, git+, hg+, or bzr+).'
        )

But it seems a bit messy, should I try to change how the arguments are parsed? I am not sure how though. Any guidance would be helpful!

[pradyunsg]

Hi @enigma0160! No worries!

We don't want to special case --upgrade-strategy here. It'll be better to change the site where we're raising the error from currently, to use the newer language I suggested above.

Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. :)

[svjmtn]

So the correction I suggested before is fine? That is checking if editable_req == '--upgrade-strategy':
Or should I do something else?

[pradyunsg]

So the correction I suggested before is fine?

No.

should I do something else?

Yes. We'd want to change the following error:

pip/src/pip/_internal/req/constructors.py

Lines 111 to 115 in 6ac468e

	raise InstallationError(
	'%s should either be a path to a local project or a VCS url '
	'beginning with svn+, git+, hg+, or bzr+' %
	editable_req
	)

And change the argument passed to the error to be equivalent to:

'{} is not a valid editable requirement it should either be a path to a local project or a VCS URL (beginning with svn+, git+, hg+, or bzr+).'.format(editable_req)

Note that, above, I'm using str.format method, which is IMO preferable to the % interpolation that's being done in constructors.py currently (it's newer and simpler). You can find more details about string interpolation in Python here: https://pyformat.info/.

The way we're transitioning between the two formats is, when we make other improvements to that bit of code (like change the error message here), we also change the syntax. That way we avoid the churn caused by a full-codebase change to switch between the two styles, since this doesn't add any value.

[svjmtn]

Oh yeah, sorry, didn`t think of that!
So this should do right?

if '+' not in url:
        raise InstallationError(
            '{} is not a valid editable requirement. '
            'It should either be a path to a local project or a VCS URL '
            '(beginning with svn+, git+, hg+, or bzr+).'.format(editable_req)
        )

[svjmtn]

I was reading through the contributors manual, what kind of a NEWS file should I create for this?
Is .trivial okay?

[pradyunsg]

So this should do right?

Yep.

reg: NEWS fragment

I'd say name it ".bugfix". Thus, you'd want to add a 6648.bugfix.

Improve error message printed when an invalid editable requirement is provided.

[svjmtn]

Okay and thanks a lot for all the help and for putting up with my silly questions!

[svjmtn]

Looks like the tests are failing because of the change in the phrasing.
Should I update the tests to reflect the changes we have made?
Or should I modify my commit?

[svjmtn]

@pradyunsg Is there anything else that I need to do in this, just wondering since its been a couple of days.