Handle distribution.files being None

[jace-ys]

Pull Request Check List

Resolves: #6788

We discovered that in some unknown situations, distribution.files can be None, causing the assertion to fail. To handle distribution.files being None more gracefully, we treat it as if it were an empty list.

• Added tests for changed code.
• Updated documentation for changed code.

[neersighted]

I do think this change is a bit clunky, I'd much rather do something like:

if not distribution.files:
    break

Otherwise, the spirit of the thing looks good to me.

[jace-ys]

Thanks for the suggestion @neersighted, definitely much neater than what I had - fixed it 👍🏻

[neersighted]

Ah, it looks like I didn't read close enough -- continue is more correct as we still need to finish the outer for-loop. My bad.

[jace-ys]

Good catch! Just updated it.

[dimbleby]

this looks suspect in the third place you've done it: we now don't execute the code after the for file in distribution.files, which we previously did for an empty list.

fwiw I preferred the original version of this MR that went files = [] if distribution.files is None else distribution.files...

[jace-ys]

@dimbleby Yeah good point. I think files = [] if distribution.files is None else distribution.files... has the benefit that it would easily solve the problem you highlighted. I also think it carries the meaning of "if distribution.files is None, we treat it as an empty list", which is nice.

I don't write Python much so don't have strong opinions on which approach is preferred - happy to defer to you folks!

[jace-ys]

@neersighted Do you have any objections if I revert it back to the original files = [] if distribution.files is None else distribution.files version?

Otherwise, I think the other option is to nest the inner for loop:

if distribution.files is not None:
    for file in distribution.files:
...

[neersighted]

Ah, good catch, I skimmed too quickly there as well 😆

Yeah, I'd rather just indent/nest the for loop than create an empty list, but that's my personal preference.

[jace-ys]

I've reverted it back to the original version I had 👍🏻

(I tried nesting the for loop but it made formatting awkward with the linting of line length)

[leocwolter]

Hey, are there any workarounds we can use before this is released?

[ffreemt]

Yeah, any workarounds? Am also struggling with a similar situation.

[leocwolter]

Hey, I just noticed that this only happens when installing poetry via apt. If you install it using the official installation script it works fine (that was the case for me at least)

…

On Sat, Dec 3, 2022, 05:58 mikey ***@***.***> wrote: Yeah, any workarounds? Am also struggling with a similar situation. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6877 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKKYRQ55XAO3DH5KH6DLGLWLMDUHANCNFSM6AAAAAARM2PPLA> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[neersighted]

Hey, are there any workarounds we can use before this is released?

#7137 is under review, we should be releasing shortly.

Hey, I just noticed that this only happens when installing poetry via apt.

Versions of Poetry distributed by distro packagers are unsupported and carry untested patches. Poetry's test suite is stripped by Debian and not run to validate their changes. We can provide no support for distro-packaged versions of Poetry.

[github-actions]

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.