Fix prefix version matching #562
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
I noticed this is in draft but #563 isn't. Does that mean we should close this one and review the other PR? |
|
@brettcannon, |
|
@mayeut no need to apologize! As you can see I'm trying to go through the PR queue here and I'm needing to build context again since it's been a while since I read up on the issue being dealt with. 😅 |
In case of prefix version matching, normalization of the version was not applied to the specifier's version. This resulted in `2` being rejected as a candidate for `==0!2.*` With normalization applied, the candidate is now accepted.
Use a different padding depending on the specifier having a pre-release/post-release segment or not in order to get the correct shortened prospective version.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Use a different padding depending on the specifier having a pre-release/post-release segment or not in order to get the correct shortened prospective version.
fix #559
fix #425
Draft while waiting for confirmation of the intended behavior in https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-440-clarification-on-prefix-version-matching-with-pre-release-post-release-segments/16622
Builds on top of #561