-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 191
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Overly strict Python dependency requirements #30
Comments
Most of this stems from the bazel-compatibility story. In particular, we want to be sure that the packages installed and leveraged when Because of this, at the moment we are opting for explicit versions to promote determinism and safety. I've been experimenting with the new |
Ah, I gotcha. That makes sense. Thanks for explaining. Bazel seems tricky to work with. |
Hey! Have you had any luck on this by chance? We're trying to use mypy-protobuf 2.4 which should give grpc stub generation for stricter type checking. If not, would it be possible to bump the explicit dependencies to the current latest versions? Thank you! Edit: Does look like the version is getting installed anyway, so this may not hinder us after all. |
Hey @gitpushdashf -- I spent some time looking at this a couple of days ago. With regards to On a related note, I spent time verifying
Which omits the transitive deps of these packages and allows for compatible versions to be installed. Both of these changes are under review. |
Ah, that's fantastic! Thank you. I didn't know about the |
Hey! Unfortunately, looks like this isn't working quite as expected. The patch level looks to be adjustable, but that's all. I seem to get this with Pipenv or Poetry.
I wonder if |
Hi @gitpushdashf 👋, Apologies, I should have been more explicit that a13c306 was intended to only allow fluctuations in patch version. After further review, for mature packages we should be fine to also free this up to minor/patch version, which should fix your dependency resolution problem. E.g.
See PEP0440 for more details on This is in review. |
Ohh, that is interesting. I didn't realize that This sounds great. We're curious to try the newer protobuf version in particular, since 3.13.0 has been out for a while. Thank you! |
Hey, I see that you guys cut 0.7.3 but haven't seen it on pypi yet. Is it coming soon? Thank you! |
Hey! 👋 A few more changes need to go in before this is tested and cut ( If this is time-sensitive, you can clone+build the package artifacts from source to test out the pypi package. |
Ah, I understand. I just saw the 0.7.3 in the Python sources, I guess. Thank you! |
I'm getting this warning (even though it looks like an error) about the new PIP dependency resolver.
I can see that the requirements are set exactly: https://github.com/google/fhir/blob/master/py/requirements.txt For a library, would it be better to do something like this?
(I haven't tested those exactly, it's just speculation and assuming those are all semver.)
Thank you!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: