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

Package pratter.3.0.0 #24746

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 6, 2023
Merged

Conversation

gabrielhdt
Copy link

pratter.3.0.0

Parse strings of tokens and mixfix operators
Pratter allows to transform strings of symbols and mixfix operators to full
binary trees.
Pratter is convenient for parsing languages made of terms with many mixfix
operators with different associativities and precedences such as
arithmetic or λ-calculi.
In contrast to parser generators, parsing rules can be edited dynamically.



🐫 Pull-request generated by opam-publish v2.2.0

gabrielhdt pushed a commit to gabrielhdt/lambdapi that referenced this pull request Nov 5, 2023
Pratter is going to be updated (see
ocaml/opam-repository#24746) and its interface
will change. To avoid conflicts, make lambdapi depend on the current
interface, that is, on pratter version 2.
fblanqui pushed a commit to Deducteam/lambdapi that referenced this pull request Nov 5, 2023
Pratter is going to be updated (see
ocaml/opam-repository#24746) and its interface
will change. To avoid conflicts, make lambdapi depend on the current
interface, that is, on pratter version 2.

Co-authored-by: Gabriel Hondet <gl_ht/dev@aleeas.com>
@jmid
Copy link
Contributor

jmid commented Nov 5, 2023

I'm surprised the lower-bound search didn't find the issue triggered by installing incompatible qcheck* versions in #24703 (comment). With #24703 still not merged, this issue should still be present.

In #24734 I furthermore added a missing qcheck lower bound in pratter.2.0.0, which I strongly suspect will also be a lower bound for 3.0.0.
I can see the test code uses QCheck.Gen https://forge.tedomum.net/koizel/pratter/-/blob/master/t/main.ml?ref_type=heads#L334
which was added in qcheck.0.5 https://github.com/c-cube/qcheck/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md
hence the test code should yield a compile-time error for lower versions.

I suspect there is a defect - in the test code - in opam-repo-ci's lower-bound search for new versions - or in something third... 🤔

@raphael-proust
Copy link
Collaborator

@jmid the lowerbounds check ran without the test dependencies

exerpt:

/home/opam: (env OPAMCRITERIA +removed,+count[version-lag,solution])
/home/opam: (env OPAMFIXUPCRITERIA +removed,+count[version-lag,solution])
/home/opam: (env OPAMUPGRADECRITERIA +removed,+count[version-lag,solution])
/home/opam: (env OPAMEXTERNALSOLVER builtin-0install)
/home/opam: (run (shell  "opam reinstall pratter.3.0.0"))

The following actions will be performed:
=== downgrade 1 package
  - downgrade dune          3.11.1 to 2.8.5 [required by pratter]
=== recompile 2 packages
  - recompile camlp-streams 5.0.1           [uses dune]
  - recompile pratter       3.0.0 (pinned)

@jmid
Copy link
Contributor

jmid commented Nov 6, 2023

Oh? What's the reason for not testing revdeps test lower bounds up front? 🤔
Wouldn't that be preferable to having to discover and fix them later?
It could explain why 95% of #24737 is fixing revdeps test lower bounds.

@gabrielhdt
Copy link
Author

I'll add a hotfix release for pratter to specify the lower bounds of test dependencies. In the meantime, I'll edit this PR to integrate these lower bounds directly (without making a new PR for release 3.0.1).

@mseri
Copy link
Member

mseri commented Nov 6, 2023

Oh? What's the reason for not testing revdeps test lower bounds up front? 🤔

Not sure. I'll check how hard is it to modify the tests and have a lower-bound check also for them

@mseri
Copy link
Member

mseri commented Nov 6, 2023

Lambdapi is fixed separately. This can be merged, thanks

@mseri mseri merged commit 56bd7cb into ocaml:master Nov 6, 2023
1 of 2 checks passed
@gabrielhdt gabrielhdt deleted the opam-publish-pratter.3.0.0 branch November 7, 2023 18:44
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