Track raw provider version, rather than rebuilding. #340
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
tomprince
commented
Oct 16, 2021
|
I think this is ready for review. |
DavHau
reviewed
Feb 5, 2022
|
It looks like this breaks conda, but the CI doesn't actually run the test against conda. |
Actually, it looks like it is #135 that breaks silently with conda. |
|
I've rebased this (and the following PRs) on #397, to get better CI. I think the failure with the conda evaluation is an existing error. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
While working on #334, I discovered that provider logic was doing a bunch of duplicate work because it wasn't preserving data it already had. This preserves the provider-known version (which is what
deviated_versionwas calculating), as well as the raw package data from the provider, which is used for calculating requirements, without having to re-find the package.I think this changes what conda build gets picked, it should now always pick the highest matching build number. I think previously it was random, if there were no build restrictions, and the lowest if there were restrictions.