Merged
Conversation
As user, you specify a list of extras. Internally, we decompose this into one virtual package per extra. We currently leak this abstraction by writing one entry per extra to the lockfile:
```toml
[[distribution]]
name = "foo"
version = "4.39.0.dev0"
source = { editable = "." }
dependencies = [
{ name = "pandas" },
{ name = "pandas", extra = "excel" },
{ name = "pandas", extra = "hdf5" },
{ name = "pandas", extra = "html", marker = "os_name != 'posix'" },
{ name = "pandas", extra = "output-formatting", marker = "os_name == 'posix'" },
{ name = "pandas", extra = "plot", marker = "os_name == 'posix'" },
]
```
Instead, we should merge the extras into a list of extras, creating a more concise lockfile:
```toml
[[distribution]]
name = "foo"
version = "4.39.0.dev0"
source = { editable = "." }
dependencies = [
{ name = "pandas", extra = ["excel", "hdf5"] },
{ name = "pandas", extra = ["html"], marker = "os_name != 'posix'" },
{ name = "pandas", extra = ["output-formatting", "plot"], marker = "os_name == 'posix'" },
]
```
Fixes #4888
| let new_dep = Dependency::from_annotated_dist(annotated_dist, marker); | ||
| for existing_dep in &mut self.dependencies { | ||
| if existing_dep.distribution_id == new_dep.distribution_id | ||
| && existing_dep.marker == new_dep.marker |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This makes add_dependency quadratic, right?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can't figure out a clean way around this.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is only called from Lock::from_resolution_graph and it's un-exported, so it should be fine to build up some intermediate state that replaces this loop with a O(1) or O(logn) check.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Totally agree. I briefly tried but had some trouble making it work.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For the large resolution transformers with all extras, this is the distribution of the number of iterations for the loop:
We run the code inside the loop 2762 times.
charliermarsh
approved these changes
Jul 18, 2024
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
3 participants
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.
As user, you specify a list of extras. Internally, we decompose this into one virtual package per extra. We currently leak this abstraction by writing one entry per extra to the lockfile:
Instead, we should merge the extras into a list of extras, creating a more concise lockfile:
The base package is now implicitly included, as it is in PEP 508.
Fixes #4888