[biobb_chemistry] update 5.0.2 #52009
Conversation
…s into biobb_chemistry
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes in this pull request focus on the Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
…s into biobb_chemistry
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
recipes/biobb_chemistry/meta.yaml (1)
Line range hint
44-45: Add license file to the package.The
license_filefield is empty, but the package is declared as Apache Licensed. Consider adding the license file to ensure proper license distribution with the package.- license_file: '' + license_file: LICENSE
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
recipes/biobb_chemistry/meta.yaml(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
recipes/biobb_chemistry/meta.yaml (2)
Line range hint 13-17: LGTM! Build configuration follows best practices.
The build number increment is appropriate for the dependency updates, and the run_exports section correctly uses pin_subpackage to prevent downstream breakage, which aligns with the PR guidelines.
25-25: Verify ambertools availability and consider version constraint.
The strict version pinning (==22.5) for ambertools might be too restrictive for users. Please verify:
- Is version 22.5 available in bioconda?
- Would a more flexible version constraint (e.g.,
>=22.5,<23.0) be more appropriate?
Also applies to: 31-31
Describe your pull request here
Please read the guidelines for Bioconda recipes before opening a pull request (PR).
General instructions
@BiocondaBot please add labelcommand.@bioconda/corein a comment.Instructions for avoiding API, ABI, and CLI breakage issues
Conda is able to record and lock (a.k.a. pin) dependency versions used at build time of other recipes.
This way, one can avoid that expectations of a downstream recipe with regards to API, ABI, or CLI are violated by later changes in the recipe.
If not already present in the meta.yaml, make sure to specify
run_exports(see here for the rationale and comprehensive explanation).Add a
run_exportssection like this:with
...being one of:{{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin="x") }}{{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin="x.x") }}{{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin="x.x") }}(in such a case, please add a note that shortly mentions your evidence for that){{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin="x.x.x") }}(in such a case, please add a note that shortly mentions your evidence for that){{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin=None) }}while replacing
"myrecipe"with eithernameif aname|lowervariable is defined in your recipe or with the lowercase name of the package in quotes.Bot commands for PR management
Please use the following BiocondaBot commands:
Everyone has access to the following BiocondaBot commands, which can be given in a comment:
@BiocondaBot please update@BiocondaBot please add labelplease review & mergelabel.@BiocondaBot please fetch artifactsYou can use this to test packages locally.
Note that the
@BiocondaBot please mergecommand is now depreciated. Please just squash and merge instead.Also, the bot watches for comments from non-members that include
@bioconda/<team>and will automatically re-post them to notify the addressed<team>.