Add is_yanked to installation report #12224
Conversation
ddelange
force-pushed
the
ddelange-patch-1
branch
3 times, most recently
from
19df53f
to
56babba
Compare
ddelange
force-pushed
the
ddelange-patch-1
branch
6 times, most recently
from
a3b5bd5
to
4652c95
Compare
ddelange
force-pushed
the
ddelange-patch-1
branch
from
4652c95
to
361b02b
Compare
Co-authored-by: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
|
Hi @pfmoore 👋 anything else from your side? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for this contrib! Code looks good to me. Could you update the documentation page too?
| @@ -23,6 +23,9 @@ def _install_req_to_dict(cls, ireq: InstallRequirement) -> Dict[str, Any]: | |||
| # includes editable requirements), and false if the requirement was | |||
| # downloaded from a PEP 503 index or --find-links. | |||
| "is_direct": ireq.is_direct, | |||
| # is_yanked is true if the requirement was yanked from the index, but | |||
| # was still selected by pip to conform to PEP 592. | |||
| "is_yanked": ireq.link.is_yanked if ireq.link else False, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we know in which circumstances ireq.link can be None ?
Perhaps we should output "is_yanked": None in that case, to express that we don't know if it's yanked or not, rather the False which asserts it is not yanked.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
when ireq.link is None, it's not coming from a pypi index. since the notion of yanking only applies to pypi indices, I think returning False here is safe. but please correct me if I'm wrong @pfmoore
There was a problem hiding this comment.
when ireq.link is None, it's not coming from a pypi index
If that's the reason of ireq.link is None, then it's fine to return is_yanked=False in such case, indeed.
|
Hi @sbidoul 👋 it looks like those docs are a bit outdated (e.g. |
Sorry I had linked the inspection report instead of the installation report (link now fixed). AFAIK the installation report reference page is up-to-date. Even if it was not, that should not be a reason to let it drift even more :) |
|
@sbidoul done 🤙 |
| @@ -56,6 +56,9 @@ package with the following properties: | |||
| URL reference. `false` if the requirements was provided as a name and version | |||
| specifier. | |||
|
|
|||
| - `is_yanked`: `true` if the requirement was yanked from the index, but was still | |||
| selected by pip conform to [PEP 592](https://peps.python.org/pep-0592/#installers). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| selected by pip conform to [PEP 592](https://peps.python.org/pep-0592/#installers). | |
| selected by pip in comformance with [PEP 592](https://peps.python.org/pep-0592/#installers). |
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
im no native, but looks like 'conform to' and 'conform with' are both fine
There was a problem hiding this comment.
all four seem to occur, conform to seems most common on ngrams
This PR adds
is_yankedto the installation report as a machine-readable alternative to #12225