Update recipe for ViroConstrictor #51038
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces several updates to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
@BiocondaBot please add label |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
recipes/viroconstrictor/meta.yaml (2)
43-43: LGTM: Mamba dependency constraint added.The addition of version constraints for the mamba dependency is a good practice. It helps ensure compatibility and reproducibility. The chosen range (>=1.5.0, <2.0.0) allows for minor updates while preventing potentially breaking changes from major version updates.
Consider adding a comment explaining the rationale behind this specific version range, especially if there are known compatibility issues with certain versions. This can be helpful for future maintenance.
21-22: LGTM: run_exports section added.The addition of the run_exports section with
{{ pin_subpackage('viroconstrictor', max_pin="x") }}is a good practice. It ensures that when ViroConstrictor is used as a dependency in other packages, it will be compatible with minor and patch updates but not major version changes. This aligns well with semantic versioning principles.Consider adding a brief comment explaining the rationale behind this pinning strategy, especially if there are specific compatibility concerns that drove this decision. This can be helpful for future maintainers.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- recipes/viroconstrictor/meta.yaml (3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
recipes/viroconstrictor/meta.yaml (2)
20-20: LGTM: Build number increment is appropriate.The build number has been correctly incremented from 0 to 1. This is the proper approach when making changes to a package recipe without altering the package version itself.
66-67: LGTM: New maintainers added.The addition of 'raaijmag' and 'wolthuisr' as recipe maintainers is a positive change. It can help with the long-term maintenance and support of the package.
The AI summary mentions that 'KHajji' was removed from the maintainers list, but this is not visible in the provided diff. Could you please verify if 'KHajji' was indeed removed? If so, ensure that this removal was intentional and approved by the relevant parties.
✅ Verification successful
Verification Complete: 'KHajji' Removed from Maintainers List
'KHajji' has been successfully removed from the maintainers list in
recipes/viroconstrictor/meta.yaml. The addition of 'raaijmag' and 'wolthuisr' as new maintainers is confirmed.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the removal of 'KHajji' from the maintainers list # Test: Check if 'KHajji' is present in the current version of the file if grep -q "KHajji" recipes/viroconstrictor/meta.yaml; then echo "'KHajji' is still present in the maintainers list." else echo "'KHajji' is not present in the current maintainers list." fi # Test: Check the git history for the removal of 'KHajji' git log -p recipes/viroconstrictor/meta.yaml | grep -B 5 -A 5 "KHajji"Length of output: 591
Updated the dependencies in the recipe to avoid a broken install and updated the recipe maintainers list.
Please read the guidelines for Bioconda recipes before opening a pull request (PR).
General instructions
@BiocondaBot please add labelcommand.@bioconda/corein a comment.Instructions for avoiding API, ABI, and CLI breakage issues
Conda is able to record and lock (a.k.a. pin) dependency versions used at build time of other recipes.
This way, one can avoid that expectations of a downstream recipe with regards to API, ABI, or CLI are violated by later changes in the recipe.
If not already present in the meta.yaml, make sure to specify
run_exports(see here for the rationale and comprehensive explanation).Add a
run_exportssection like this:with
...being one of:{{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin="x") }}{{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin="x.x") }}{{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin="x.x") }}(in such a case, please add a note that shortly mentions your evidence for that){{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin="x.x.x") }}(in such a case, please add a note that shortly mentions your evidence for that){{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin=None) }}while replacing
"myrecipe"with eithernameif aname|lowervariable is defined in your recipe or with the lowercase name of the package in quotes.Bot commands for PR management
Please use the following BiocondaBot commands:
Everyone has access to the following BiocondaBot commands, which can be given in a comment:
@BiocondaBot please update@BiocondaBot please add labelplease review & mergelabel.@BiocondaBot please fetch artifactsYou can use this to test packages locally.
Note that the
@BiocondaBot please mergecommand is now depreciated. Please just squash and merge instead.Also, the bot watches for comments from non-members that include
@bioconda/<team>and will automatically re-post them to notify the addressed<team>.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
snakemakeentry in the run requirements to avoid duplication.Chores