Updated deps accoring to the docs guidelines. #1094
Conversation
ipanova
force-pushed
the
declare-deps
branch
2 times, most recently
from
66a62a2 to
6f99d06
Compare
|
@bmbouter is this what you've expected from a plugin adhering to the new guidelines? |
requirements.txt
Outdated
| django-filter>=22.1,<=22.1 | ||
| django-import-export>=2.9,<=2.9.0 | ||
| drf-access-policy>=1.1.2,<=1.1.2 | ||
| drf-spectacular==0.24.2 # We monkeypatch this so we need a very narrow requirement string |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you directly import this?
Anything pulp_container doesn't directly import doesn't need to be declared. Perhaps you do directly import this though....
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah we do
[ipanova@puffy pulp_container]$ git grep spectac
.ci/scripts/schema.py:This script modifies drf-spectacular schema validation to accept slashes and curly brackets.
.ci/scripts/schema.py:from drf_spectacular.validation import JSON_SCHEMA_SPEC_PATH
pulp_container/app/viewsets.py:from drf_spectacular.utils import extend_schema
[ipanova@puffy pulp_container]$ git grep extend_schema
pulp_container/app/viewsets.py:from drf_spectacular.utils import extend_schema
pulp_container/app/viewsets.py: @extend_schema(
pulp_container/app/viewsets.py: @extend_schema(
pulp_container/app/viewsets.py: @extend_schema(
pulp_container/app/viewsets.py: @extend_schema(
pulp_container/app/viewsets.py: @extend_schema(
pulp_container/app/viewsets.py: @extend_schema(
pulp_container/app/viewsets.py: @extend_schema(
pulp_container/app/viewsets.py: @extend_schema(
pulp_container/app/viewsets.py: @extend_schema(
pulp_container/app/viewsets.py: @extend_schema(
pulp_container/app/viewsets.py: @extend_schema(
pulp_container/app/viewsets.py: @extend_schema(
[ipanova@puffy pulp_container]$
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would expect us to have a very broad range here. Pinning to the same version as pulpcore is calling for desaster. Also i think the monkey-patching does not apply here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, I think this can be very broad and it needs to be or this strategy won't work well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As an aside, we need pulpcore to stop pinning.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nothing without badly breaking the client bindings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would still call drf-spectacular part of the pulpcore plugin interface. But I do not intend to reroll the whole discussion from the beginning.
How about drf-spectacular>=0.24,<0.25?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd be ok with either drf-spectacular>=0.24,<0.25 or not declaring it at all.
I left a question, but style-wise yes this is exactly what I was expecting. |
ty for proofreading |
| version: 2 | ||
| updates: | ||
| - package-ecosystem: pip | ||
| directory: "/" | ||
| schedule: | ||
| interval: weekly | ||
| open-pull-requests-limit: 10 | ||
| commit-message: | ||
| prefix: "[noissue]" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ugh this is what will activate Dependabot on all forks.
Any new reason to add this file?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes? who will manage the automatic updates of the released deps?https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/blob/main/docs/plugins/plugin-writer/concepts/index.rst#declaring-dependencies
I don;t think it will activate on forks, can you point me to the config you then expect to see?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is rather a big annoyance. Not a reason to stop doing this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ipanova
force-pushed
the
declare-deps
branch
from
66ec542 to
7ffa353
Compare
closes #1093