-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.9k
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
Added recipe for linecache2 #887
Conversation
Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service. I wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR ( Here's what I've got... For recipes/linecache2:
|
So, as per the linter, I'm not sure what license to use here. |
Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service. I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR ( |
See Issue #2 for why this build is failing. Looking at patches... |
No thanks, I'm not a conda user. |
Yes (and no 😄) The the lingering recipe is just showing another bug. Can you rebase this against the latest master. (I guess there will be some other left-over recipe, but those should pass. The |
patches: | ||
- inspect_fodder2.patch # [not py3k] | ||
- test_linecache.patch # [not py3k] | ||
# inspect_fodder2 kills the build when byte-compiling on py 2.x |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe this is one of those things that would not happen if we were using pip
to install it. This is the 3rd package in conda-forge that needs this workaround... Maybe it is time to re-visit #528
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we send these upstream or at least raise an issue? Would be great if they make some adjustments for these issues.
File "/opt/conda/envs/_build/lib/python2.7/site-packages/linecache2/tests/inspect_fodder2.py", line 102
def keyworded(*arg1, arg2=1):
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax I am wrong! Thanks for trying @pmlandwehr and sorry for the trouble. |
This reverts commit c0a3cef.
@pmlandwehr BTW, the reference that a |
+ | ||
+ | ||
+class BadUnicode(GetLineTestsBadData, unittest.TestCase): | ||
+ file_byte_string = b'\x80abc' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we adding new tests for them? Thoughts on this @pelson?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What about this stuff though, @pmlandwehr? Looks like an addition to me. 😕
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, whoops. Yeah - that's taken from the patch mentioned in this comment That patch was applied to a different commit than the current one in the base repo, so I ported those changes into a new file. That could hasn't been thoroughly reviewed; rather, I was trusting that the various adaptations were indeed necessary for providing tests missing from the original. The fact that the original patches weren't sufficient surprised me, and resulted in the commenting spree in test_linecache.py
So: before passing this on to upstream we should establish that everything in theinspect_fodder.py
patch is still essential to the build.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems we forgot to delete the patch after we stopped using it. Proposing removal in PR ( conda-forge/linecache2-feedstock#2 ).
The patch discussions are split across multiple lines of the change, so I'll just pull the high level discussion back up to here. What is our intention with the
I feel like all of these are suggested at some point in the above discussion ;) My personal preference is for (1) sticking to upstream, as indeed I did in my own version of this recipe. Note that none of the above discussion changes the user-visible API of the module at all. It's purely avoiding a byte-compile issue on py2 with a test data file that happened to end in |
@pmlandwehr is this good to go? |
@pmlandwehr and @anguslees you may not need the patch with latest conda-build. See conda/conda-build#1146 (comment) @msarahan as soon as we have a release we can test that here. |
So |
Here's hoping... |
Yep! All fixed, hooray. |
Appveyor crash seems like a fluke. Closing and restarting... |
Pinging @ocefpaf for commit. |
Pinging @rbtcollins in case he would like to be added as a maintainer to the
linecache2
builder on conda-forge, a library of community-buildconda
packages - see, uh, my request at #886. If you aren't interested in helping maintain the build, that is entirely fine too.