Rename distribution to packages in lockfile
#5861
Merged
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
Member
|
What's the migration story here? Are we just throwing an error or will we replace the lockfile? |
Member
Author
|
Yeah |
Member
|
What? |
Member
Author
|
Ah sorry i misread; we never error with invalid lockfiles, we ignore them and replace them. We could add an alias or something if we want to preserve previous preferences. |
Member
|
I think that's okay with me, thank you. |
Member
|
Can we add a basic test to verify that we don't error for an invalid lockfile? |
charliermarsh
approved these changes
Aug 7, 2024
Member
|
Will add and merge. |
Currently, the entry for a package+version+source table is called `distribution`. That is incorrect, the `sdist` and `wheel` fields inside of that table are distribution, the table itself is for a package. We also align ourselves closer with PEP 751. I went through `lock.rs` and renamed all occurrences of "distribution" that actually referred to a "package". This change invalidates all existing lockfiles. Bikeshedding: Do we call it `package` or `packages`? See also python/peps#3877 `package` is nice because it looks like a header: ```toml [[package]] name = "anyio" version = "4.3.0" source = { registry = "https://pypi.org/simple" } dependencies = [ { name = "idna" }, { name = "sniffio" }, ] sdist = { url = "https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/db/4d/3970183622f0330d3c23d9b8a5f52e365e50381fd484d08e3285104333d3/anyio-4.3.0.tar.gz", hash = "sha256:f75253795a87df48568485fd18cdd2a3fa5c4f7c5be8e5e36637733fce06fed6", size = 159642 } wheels = [ { url = "https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/14/fd/2f20c40b45e4fb4324834aea24bd4afdf1143390242c0b33774da0e2e34f/anyio-4.3.0-py3-none-any.whl", hash = "sha256:048e05d0f6caeed70d731f3db756d35dcc1f35747c8c403364a8332c630441b8", size = 85584 }, ] `packages` is nice because the field is not a single entry, but a list.
a1ec773 to
d37099b
Compare
Member
Author
|
I've added an alias and confirmed that we read the previous lock as preferences |
Member
|
Cool. I think this is fine to merge as-is. |
6 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Currently, the entry for a package+version+source table is called
distribution. That is incorrect, thesdistandwheelfields inside of that table are distributions, the table itself is for a package. We also align ourselves closer with PEP 751.I went through
lock.rsand renamed all occurrences of "distribution" that actually referred to a "package".This change invalidates all existing lockfiles.
Bikeshedding: Do we call it
packageorpackages? See also python/peps#3877packageis nice because it looks like a header:packagesis nice because the field is not a single entry, but a list.2/3 for #4893