Skip to content
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

python-setup: Allow newest virtualenv #1256

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 21, 2022
Merged

Conversation

RasmusWL
Copy link
Member

Context for previous version is
#862

Locally, I was able to install 20.15.1 with Python2.

I don't see any reason why python3 version should be restricted.

Merge / deployment checklist

  • Confirm this change is backwards compatible with existing workflows.
  • Confirm the readme has been updated if necessary.
  • Confirm the changelog has been updated if necessary.

Context for previous version is
#862

Locally, I was able to install `20.15.1` with Python2.

I don't see any reason why python3 version should be restricted.
@RasmusWL RasmusWL requested review from a team as code owners September 16, 2022 18:51
Copy link
Contributor

@aeisenberg aeisenberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for following up on this. I think this looks fine, but I just want to clarify my understanding.

With this change, the install_tools scripts will install the latest version of virtualenv that is not 20.12.0 (on python2) and the latest version on python3?

Since the latest version is now 20.15 and going up, the range restriction is not being used.

@RasmusWL
Copy link
Member Author

With this change, the install_tools scripts will install the latest version of virtualenv that is not 20.12.0 (on python2) and the latest version on python3?

Since the latest version is now 20.15 and going up, the range restriction is not being used.

Correct on both. I guess we could remove the range restriction entirely, if you prefer 😊

Copy link
Contributor

@yoff yoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is fine as far as I can tell. Is there a way to test it?

@RasmusWL
Copy link
Member Author

This is fine as far as I can tell. Is there a way to test it?

sure, see the jobs at https://github.com/github/codeql-action/actions/runs/3070050275

@RasmusWL RasmusWL requested a review from yoff September 19, 2022 09:11
@yoff
Copy link
Contributor

yoff commented Sep 19, 2022

This is fine as far as I can tell. Is there a way to test it?

sure, see the jobs at https://github.com/github/codeql-action/actions/runs/3070050275

Ah, thanks 👍

Copy link
Contributor

@yoff yoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants