The python.install requires the path key

[jeffwidman]

The path key seems to be required per:

readthedocs.org/readthedocs/rtd_tests/fixtures/spec/v2/schema.json

Lines 277 to 278 in cb50bbf

	"required": [
	"path"

---

📚 Documentation previews 📚

• User's documentation (docs): https://docs--11300.org.readthedocs.build/en/11300/

• Developer's documentation (dev): https://dev--11300.org.readthedocs.build/en/11300/

[humitos]

I'm pinging @stsewd here since I think that the :Required: bullet in the documentation refers to the whole section. In this case I understand that required: false means that you can use python.install without using .path.

[stsewd]

I think this makes sense. And how it's currently documented, we separate both options in different sections (requirements file and packages).

Can we also change the requirements key to also be marked as required in the docs, so it's consistent with this change?

[stsewd]

Actually, looks like we changed these in #10303

[jeffwidman]

Afraid I'm not actually sure what the best outcome is here... all I know is that:

1. I was confused as a user because requirements and package installs are both listed as optional.
2. I noticed my VScode editor was pulling in the schema file, and saying the path key was required.

So there's an apparent inconsistency between the schema and docs... But I get what you're saying @humitos that really what's required is to have either the path key or the requirements key, but that the confusion likely stems from the documentation putting them in separate subsections... at least that's what I'm grok'ing so far.

If my understanding is correct, then perhaps the schema file is actually what needs updating?

readthedocs.org/readthedocs/rtd_tests/fixtures/spec/v2/schema.json

Lines 277 to 278 in cb50bbf

	"required": [
	"path"

And then perhaps clarify in the docs that "one of either requirements or path is required..." ??

[stsewd]

I like the suggestion from #10303 (comment), writing "required when..."

If my understanding is correct, then perhaps the schema file is actually what needs updating?

Schema is fine, we have two installation methods, and each requires a different key, we could have used two different "parent keys" so they don't share the same parent key, but that ship already sailed...