don't export unwanted extras #5819
Merged
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
maybe it can be done if I split the export plugin fix into two MRs... |
dimbleby
force-pushed
the
dont-export-unwanted-extras
branch
from
891aee6 to
f728412
Compare
|
release of poetry-plugin-export 1.0.5 allows the pipeline here to go green, this should be good to merge |
neersighted
approved these changes
Jul 13, 2022
Merged
|
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #5779, tested in python-poetry/poetry-plugin-export#73.
Cross-repository unit testing continues to be hairy, good luck finding the right sequence to merge things and keep pipelines happy.
It looks as though
in_extrasis only set for packages in the top-level project extras. Per #5779 (comment) it's not clear to me whether that's expected, but the pragmatic thing to do seems to be to do the checking differently here, in a way that works for both cases.