Fix crash if dependencies have prerelease requires-python versions #1112
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
Hnasar
force-pushed
the
pre-release-versions
branch
from
3bbac16
to
b20434b
Compare
Recently, coverage 6.4.1 listed its requirements with an alpha version of
python and this broke PDM's version parsing:
extras_require={
'toml': ['tomli; python_full_version<="3.11.0a6"'],
},
Prerelease `requires-python` versions *are* valid, per these specifications:
* https://peps.python.org/pep-0440/
* https://peps.python.org/pep-0621/#requires-python
* https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/core-metadata/#requires-python
Therefore this commit adds missing parsing support for `{a|b|rc}[N]`
pre-release specifiers which are used by python language releases:
* https://docs.python.org/3/faq/general.html#how-does-the-python-version-numbering-scheme-work
This bug meant that projects that directly or indirectly depended on coverage
were unable to update pdm.lock using commands like `update` `add` `lock` and
`install` because `pdm.models.versions.Version` would raise:
pdm.exceptions.InvalidPyVersion: 3.11.0a6: Prereleases or postreleases are not supported for python version specifers.
Until this is fixed, projects can workaround this by depending on:
"coverage<6.4",
"coverage[toml]<6.4",
Fixes pdm-project#1111
Hnasar
force-pushed
the
pre-release-versions
branch
from
b20434b
to
74988c6
Compare
|
Thanks for doing this, mostly LGTM. Can you remove the workaround here since prereleases are now supported in the python specifier. |
Since prereleases are now supported in python specifiers (in the previous commit), we can remove the workaround (from commit 8e72609 for pdm-project#932) that converted a python prerelease version to a specifier range.
|
@frostming Thank you for PDM! I removed the workaround entirely since the function is only used in a single place. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1112 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.30% 84.33% +0.03%
==========================================
Files 74 74
Lines 6532 6577 +45
Branches 1355 1543 +188
==========================================
+ Hits 5507 5547 +40
- Misses 696 701 +5
Partials 329 329
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Recently, coverage 6.4.1 listed its requirements with an alpha version of
python and this broke PDM's version parsing:
Prerelease
requires-pythonversions are valid, per these specifications:Therefore this commit adds missing parsing support for
{a|b|rc}[N]pre-release specifiers which are used by python language releases:
This bug meant that projects that directly or indirectly depended on coverage
were unable to update pdm.lock using commands like
updateaddlockandinstallbecausepdm.models.versions.Versionwould raise:Until this is fixed, projects can workaround this by depending on:
Fixes #1111