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

Metadata Schema #4179

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Metadata Schema #4179

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

kenodegard
Copy link
Contributor

Instead of having a highly decentralized process of validating the contents and format of the metadata this introduces a schema that is used to validate/standardize the metadata prior to storage/usage.

Using this schema obsoletes the need to check whether a section is an OPTIONALLY_ITERABLE_FIELDS and other optional styles of defining the metadata (e.g. "build/run_exports" which can be a simple list which implicitly means those values are "weak", or a dict explicitly specifying "weak", "strong", etc. values).

This further helps to centralize the checking of the metadata to where it happens all at once upon parsing the metafile and not randomly throughout the build process and at least theoretically should help users to more easily catch metadata issues.

I'm leaving the cleanup process of removing obsolete code to future PRs.

Instead of having a highly decentralized process of validating the contents and format of the metadata this introduces a schema that is used to validate/standardize the metadata prior to storage/usage.
@anaconda-issue-bot anaconda-issue-bot added the cla-signed [bot] added once the contributor has signed the CLA label Jan 15, 2021
@mingwandroid
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for your work again @njalerikson. I look forward to reviewing it as soon as I get some time.

@kenodegard kenodegard force-pushed the metadata-schema branch 2 times, most recently from 15f5ec6 to ca46e6e Compare January 15, 2021 22:45
@github-actions
Copy link

Hi there, thank you for your contribution!

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs.

If you would like this pull request to remain open please:

  1. Rebase and verify the changes still work
  2. Leave a comment with the current status

NOTE: If this pull request was closed prematurely, please leave a comment.

Thanks!

1 similar comment
@github-actions
Copy link

Hi there, thank you for your contribution!

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs.

If you would like this pull request to remain open please:

  1. Rebase and verify the changes still work
  2. Leave a comment with the current status

NOTE: If this pull request was closed prematurely, please leave a comment.

Thanks!

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale [bot] marked as stale due to inactivity label Jul 29, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added stale::closed [bot] closed after being marked as stale labels Aug 28, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Aug 28, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Aug 28, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked [bot] locked due to inactivity label Aug 27, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 27, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
cla-signed [bot] added once the contributor has signed the CLA locked [bot] locked due to inactivity stale::closed [bot] closed after being marked as stale stale [bot] marked as stale due to inactivity
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants