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

Change restricted version of pyflakes #308

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 31, 2019
Merged

Change restricted version of pyflakes #308

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 31, 2019

Conversation

IDerr
Copy link
Contributor

@IDerr IDerr commented Nov 29, 2018

Change restricted version from 2.0.0 to 2.1.0 to fix #307

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 77.699% when pulling 3970f76 on IDerr:master into 8bb1970 on PyCQA:master.

@Kilo59
Copy link
Contributor

Kilo59 commented Dec 4, 2018

Would it be better (and possible) to loosen the requirements to allow for minor/micro updates to pyflakes while restricting major/minor ones?

Would either of these work?

'pyflakes<2.1,>=0.8.1',
'pyflakes<2,>=0.8.1',

@carlio
Copy link
Member

carlio commented Dec 4, 2018

Prospector has the problem that it is using apis of several other packages which were not really meant as libraries but rather as first-class cli tools, with their own release cycles, and some of those apis are not designed to be public but rather internal, so it's very easy for any release of any upstream dependency to break prospector. That's why things have moved to being very restrictive, because broken prospector means broken builds for lots of people and ultimately the bug reports go here first.

A better "notification -> update of prospector -> release" cycle is necessary unfortunately to avoid people spending their morning working out why builds suddenly break and then prospector devs have to work out why and then it turns out that pylint renamed a function or something...

@Kilo59
Copy link
Contributor

Kilo59 commented Dec 4, 2018

I agree, it would be nice if only allowing micro-releases, for example, would guarantee nothing breaks and only ever fix minor bugs. But I don't think that's something you could be sure of.

This is a nice new feature of github.
https://help.github.com/articles/watching-and-unwatching-releases-for-a-repository/

Perhaps it can be a part of that new release cycle. Even better if say a CI job could be kicked off and tested with the new pinned version automatically.

@carlio
Copy link
Member

carlio commented Dec 4, 2018

I've been having a similar discussion about another lib I maintain, pylint-django, as it faces the same problems: pylint-dev/pylint-django#206

@Kilo59
Copy link
Contributor

Kilo59 commented Dec 5, 2018

Should give this a try.
I set it up on one of my repos a little while ago and actually found it annoying so I turned it off.
But I think it might actually work very well for this problem.

It will automatically submit PR's with updated requirements files when a dependency gets updated.

https://pyup.io/

@changeling
Copy link

What's the status of this?

@chocoelho chocoelho self-requested a review August 26, 2019 23:50
@chocoelho chocoelho self-assigned this Aug 26, 2019
@chocoelho
Copy link
Contributor

According to their changelog we should be good to go, I just want to give it some more trying in order to check with other repos. Checked against prospector project and it ran fine, but still need to validate this change against a wider range of projects to check if we're not going to trigger broken builds throughout repos.

@chocoelho chocoelho merged commit 4bd6086 into landscapeio:develop Aug 31, 2019
@IDerr
Copy link
Contributor Author

IDerr commented Aug 31, 2019

Thanks for your work guys

@chocoelho
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @IDerr I hope to ship this soon, at least in a dev version.

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.

None yet

6 participants